lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fredrik Andersson <fidde.anders...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Binary fields in index
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:38:29 GMT
I was hoping to avoid the overhead of encoding/decoding, but it looks like
I'll have to do that :(

While on the topic, I noticed in the Field class that we have a "isBinary"
boolean flag, however this always gets set to false in the constructors as
well as the default value, and I can't even see a usage of this flag at
write-time. What's the point of this flag, a feature for binary fields that
was never implemented? I'm talking about the latest sources now, by the way,
1.9.something.

Fredrik

On 9/26/05, Koji Sekiguchi <koji.sekiguchi@m4.dion.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> You can encode (e.g. base64) the binary data to get a String
> and store the String.
>
> Koji
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fredrik Andersson [mailto:fidde.andersson@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:31 PM
> > To: general@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Binary fields in index
> >
> >
> > Hello Gang!
> >
> > Is there any trick, or undocumented way, to store binary (unindexed,
> > untokenized) data in a Lucene Field? All the Field
> > constructors just deal
> > with Strings. I'm currently using another database to store
> > binary data, but
> > it would be very neat, and more efficient, to store it
> > directly in Lucene.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Fredrik
> >
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message