lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2294) Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:13:27 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12841232#action_12841232
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2294:
--------------------------------------------

+1 -- this is great!

bq. I am not sure why MaxFieldLength is required in all IW ctors, yet IW declares a DEFAULT
(which is an int and not MaxFieldLength). 

This is because it's a dangerous setting (you silently lose content
while indexing), a trap.  So we want to force the user to make the
choice, up front, so they realize the implications.

But, if we change the default to UNLIMITED (which we should do under
Version), then I agree you should not have to specify it.

bq. In my opinion it should be left to the apploication to limit the number of tokens if needed,
but not silently drop tokens

I like that approach -- we could make a TokenFilter to do this?  Then
we don't need MFL at all in IWC (and deprecate in IW).

bq. I was wondering if perhaps instead of allowing to pass a create=true/false, we should
use an enum with 3 values: CREATE, APPEND, CREATE_OR_APPEND

+1

bq. I'm thinking to make this whole IWC a constructor only parameter to IW, without the ability
to set it afterwards.

+1 in general, though we should go setting by setting to confirm this is OK.  I
don't know of "real" use cases where apps eg want to change RAM buffer
or mergeFactor... but maybe there are some interesting usages out
there.


> Create IndexWriterConfiguration and store all of IW configuration there
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2294
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2294
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> I would like to factor out of all IW configuration parameters into a single configuration
class, which I propose to name IndexWriterConfiguration (or IndexWriterConfig). I want to
store there almost everything besides the Directory, and to reduce all the ctors down to one:
IndexWriter(Directory, IndexWriterConfiguration). What I was thinking of storing there are
the following parameters:
> * All of ctors parameters, except for Directory.
> * The different setters where it makes sense. For example I still think infoStream should
be set on IW directly.
> I'm thinking that IWC should expose everything in a setter/getter methods, and defaults
to whatever IW defaults today. Except for Analyzer which will need to be defined in the ctor
of IWC and won't have a setter.
> I am not sure why MaxFieldLength is required in all IW ctors, yet IW declares a DEFAULT
(which is an int and not MaxFieldLength). Do we still think that 10000 should be the default?
Why not default to UNLIMITED and otherwise let the application decide what LIMITED means for
it? I would like to make MFL optional on IWC and default to something, and I hope that default
will be UNLIMITED. We can document that on IWC, so that if anyone chooses to move to the new
API, he should be aware of that ...
> I plan to deprecate all the ctors and getters/setters and replace them by:
> * One ctor as described above
> * getIndexWriterConfiguration, or simply getConfig, which can then be queried for the
setting of interest.
> * About the setters, I think maybe we can just introduce a setConfig method which will
override everything that is overridable today, except for Analyzer. So someone could do iw.getConfig().setSomething();
iw.setConfig(newConfig);
> ** The setters on IWC can return an IWC to allow chaining set calls ... so the above
will turn into iw.setConfig(iw.getConfig().setSomething1().setSomething2()); 
> BTW, this is needed for Parallel Indexing (see LUCENE-1879), but I think it will greatly
simplify IW's API.
> I'll start to work on a patch.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message