Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 71225 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2010 22:49:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2010 22:49:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 71975 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2010 22:49:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71899 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2010 22:49:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71892 invoked by uid 99); 23 Sep 2010 22:49:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:49:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:48:54 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8NMmWa7011658 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:48:33 GMT Message-ID: <6044155.374021285282112767.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:48:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ryan McKinley (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2665) Rework FieldCache to be more flexible/general In-Reply-To: <8815609.373801285280973864.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12914270#action_12914270 ] Ryan McKinley commented on LUCENE-2665: --------------------------------------- While we are thinking about it... perhaps the best option is to add a Cache to the IndexReader itself. This would be nice since it would would drop the WeakHashMap that is used all over. I just like hard references better! The one (ok maybe there are more) hitch I can think of is that some Cache instances don't care about deleted docs (FieldCache) and others do. Perhaps the EntryCreator knows and the Cache coud behave differently... or am i getting ahead of myself! > Rework FieldCache to be more flexible/general > --------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-2665 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2665 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Ryan McKinley > Attachments: LUCENE-2665-FieldCacheOverhaul.patch > > > The existing FieldCache implementation is very rigid and does not allow much flexibility. In trying to implement simple features, it points to much larger structural problems. > This patch aims to take a fresh approach to how we work with the FieldCache. -- 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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org