lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FieldCacheImpl mistake?
Date Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:49:26 GMT
There is some code in contrib with comments claiming this interning is 
actually slower. I think it was the MemoryIndex? Has this ever been 
discussed?

- Mark

Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> I'm not looking at the code now, but I believe this is because those Strings are interned,
and I believe they are interned precisely so that this (faster) comparison can be done.
>
> Otis
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/  -  Tag  -  Search  -  Share
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: poeta simbolista <poetasimbolista@gmail.com>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:47:36 PM
> Subject: FieldCacheImpl mistake?
>
>
> Hi guys,
> I have been diving into the FieldCacheImpl code.
> I have seen sth on actual version:
> Revision 488908 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs]
> Modified Wed Dec 20 03:47:09 2006 UTC (8 weeks ago) by yonik
> File length: 13425 byte(s) 
>
> that I wonder if it's not totally right, or if it is, I would like to know
> why.
>
> In the creation of eeach cache (Int, Float, String) there is a String
> comparison using != instead of equals method:
>
> if (term==null || term.field() != field) break;
>
> I hope this can be useful... though i have used the code and it seems to
> work perfectly.
> Cheers
>
>
>   

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


Mime
View raw message