lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FST and FieldCache?
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 13:22:25 GMT
> maybe thats because we have one huge monolithic implementation

Doesn't the DocValues branch solve this?

Also, instead of trying to implement clever ways of compressing
strings in the field cache, which probably won't bare fruit, I'd
prefer to look at [eventually] MMap'ing (using DV) the field caches to
avoid the loading and heap costs, which are signifcant.  I'm not sure
if we can easily MMap packed ints and the shared byte[], though it
seems fairly doable?

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/19 Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>:
>
>> Of course, for
>> certain apps that perf hit is justified, so probably we should make
>> this an option when populating field cache (ie, in-memory storage
>> option of using an FST vs using packed ints/byte[]).
>>
>
> or should we actually try to have different fieldcacheimpls?
>
> I see all these missions to refactor the thing, which always fail.
>
> maybe thats because we have one huge monolithic implementation.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message