Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9678 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2010 05:33:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2010 05:33:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 45772 invoked by uid 500); 29 Oct 2010 05:33:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 45633 invoked by uid 500); 29 Oct 2010 05:33:45 -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 45626 invoked by uid 99); 29 Oct 2010 05:33:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:33:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcmuir@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.48] (HELO mail-fx0-f48.google.com) (209.85.161.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:33:38 +0000 Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so2609027fxm.35 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=RJEOV8lfM9t3g2ZFsTixG1Uf9Q1LrO7kW4jlnLbTvl0=; b=tbDoOtT+IPKt0YUY8dBNCKBOllsAGJSiilIaQZ7C1Ab2dsIHNMiccLx4XBQNSZ7n1N 7invhnGQwiBinnLJTTsJvJw1L6MwnLfGLvrFHAGuxH/3JqZh7mB7nVqS6zD50xqRVh7o TDeMRxipqGFeP3FW68TQ/E2bjxzMbpg7CKbIc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=X45wfHWLnYPmFHEGtUeierGOrnq0afeQMHqpQwdwAKwQ9fSdKKMswSq/x7BZFY+YFE l8kJ6XeZwOYBIP+xm2+4gW6FC6Ipjawf6HXx4IIIC0P/4XB0xbSRjKeJ4uU0gUze1KKa +wWt2V1/KMq8etEh/GNuwnckuMVYN0J3wNuds= Received: by 10.223.101.194 with SMTP id d2mr4977977fao.88.1288330398156; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.78.202 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:32:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Robert Muir Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:32:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: inconsistency/performance trap of empty terms To: dev@lucene.apache.org, Andi Vajda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Andi Vajda wrote: > > I've used this in a URL index. I needed to be able to distinguish between > searching URLs that had, say, no path, from searching URLs without matching > the path component. The absence of path was represented with an empty token > in the path field. > but you didn't really need to use the empty term... you could have used something like U+001F INFORMATION SEPARATOR... and your whole index would have been an entire byte bigger? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org