lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3443) Port 3.x FieldCache.getDocsWithField() to trunk
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:43:51 GMT


Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-3443:

bq. Ie, there's no guarantee w/in trunk that performance won't "change",

Of course not.  I'm arguing a specific point though: that we shouldn't double time time it
takes solr users to instantiate field caches (or other lucene users that regularly use sortMissingLast).
 "we can do it later" is not a good argument to remove existing functionality.

bq. > Or we could generate the bits by default - the extra cache entry if not needed is
less serious than doubling the generation time.

I mean, generate the bits by default until the two-pass problem is fixed (not forever).

bq. I'd rather not do that; apps that don't use sort missing first/last shouldn't be forced
to spend the RAM (even if it's only a bit per doc).

But it's trunk, right?  There's no guarantee w/in trunk that performance won't "change" ;-)
Using 1/32 more memory (3%) is way less evil than doubling field cache entry times.

bq. Also, this (uniqueTermCount) is redundant with Terms.getUniqueTermCount()?

Not for numeric fields, where a precisionStep causes nTerms > nUniqueValues

> Port 3.x FieldCache.getDocsWithField() to trunk
> -----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3443
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/search
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 3.5, 4.0
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3443.patch
> [Spinoff from LUCENE-3390]
> I think the approach in 3.x for handling un-valued docs, and making it
> possible to specify how such docs are sorted, is better than the
> solution we have in trunk.
> I like that FC has a dedicated method to get the Bits for docs with field
> -- easy for apps to directly use.  And I like that the
> bits have their own entry in the FC.
> One downside is that it's 2 passes to get values and valid bits, but
> I think we can fix this by passing optional bool to FC.getXXX methods
> indicating you want the bits, and the populate the FC entry for the
> missing bits as well.  (We can do that for 3.x and trunk). Then it's
> single pass.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message