lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FST and FieldCache?
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 13:02:45 GMT
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 16:45, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote:
>
>> That's what I invented, and yes, it was invented by countless people
>> before :)
> You know I didn't mean to sound rude, right? I'm really admiring your
> ability to come up with these solutions by yourself, I'm merely copying
> other folks' ideas.
I tried to prevent another reference to mr. Daciuk :)

> Anyway, the optimization you're describing is sure possible. Lucene's FST
> implementation can actually combine both approaches because always expanding
> nodes is inefficient and those already expanded will allow a binary search
> (assuming the automaton structure is known to the implementation).
> Another refinement of this idea creates a detached table (err.. index :) of
> states to start from inside the automaton, so that you don't have to go
> through the initial 2-3 states which are more or less always large and even
> binary search is costly there.
> Dawid

But you have to lookup this err..index somehow. And that's either
binary or hash lookup. Where's the win?


-- 
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко
E-Mail/Jabber: earwin@gmail.com
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

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


Mime
View raw message