lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kelvin Tan <kelvin-li...@relevanz.com>
Subject Re: Searching on multiple default fields
Date Wed, 14 May 2003 09:52:49 GMT


On Tue, 13 May 2003 21:20:25 -0600, Tatu Saloranta said:
>On Tuesday 13 May 2003 18:53, Kelvin Tan wrote:
>>I confess that I've never quite understood the use of
>>Field.UnStored. So
>>the field is indexed but the original content is not saved?
<snip>
>This way content
>won't be
>stored twice. Similarly, for web pages, pages are likely to already
>exist in
>the file system. Why store a duplicate in the index?
>
>In fact I think more often than not storing content in Lucene index
>doesn't
>make much sense. As long as content is stored somewhere from where
>it can
>easily be accessed (using unique id or so), chances are that
>searches (not to
>mention indexing) are also faster when content is not stored, just
>indexed?
>

That's a very good point. I wonder why it didn't occur to me previously. I 
suppose there are instances when it is expensive to retrieve the source 
(network overhead etc), but they are the exception rather than the norm. 

Thanks for the insight.

Kelvin

>Just my 2 cents,
>
>-+ Tatu +-
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org





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


Mime
View raw message