lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1799) Unicode compression
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:14:59 GMT
doh! well if you have it, that will be very handy for verification.
I'll create a separate issue for this shortly, maybe you can review the
patch

Thanks,
Robert

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Steven A Rowe <sarowe@syr.edu> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> Ack, actually two days ago I updated my Lucene trunk checkout and removed
> that code, thinking its utility had evaporated!
>
> But maybe IntelliJ will save my bacon in its local history cache.  (Praise
> IntelliJ!)  I'll check tonight when I get home.
>
> Steve
>
> On 11/19/2009 at 10:16 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > Steven, do you still have a test setup to measure collation key
> > generation performance with Lucene?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Steven A Rowe <sarowe@syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       Hi Robert,
> >
> >
> >       On 11/18/2009 at 7:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote:    > Looking at the
> > collation support, we could maybe improve     >
> IndexableBinaryStringTools
> > by using char[]/byte[] with offset and        > length. The existing
> > ByteBuffer/CharBuffer methods could stay, they are    > consistent with
> > Charset api and are not wrong imo, but instead defer to       > the new
> > char[]/byte[] ones... the current buffer-based ones require the       >
> > buffer to have a backing array anyway or will throw an exception.
> >
> >
> >       +1
> >
> >       I used *Buffers because I thought it simplified method
> > prototypes, no other reason.
> >
> >       Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com
>
>
>


-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message