Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of johnmunir@aol.com designates
 64.12.137.5 as permitted sender)
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Field name size and index size
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:11:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: John <johnmunir@aol.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--------MB_8CA5A3556C555DF_964_4453_MBLK-M35.sysops.aol.com"
Message-Id: <8CA5A3556C2F38C-964-21CA@MBLK-M35.sysops.aol.com>

----------MB_8CA5A3556C555DF_964_4453_MBLK-M35.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi,

Lets say my data source consists of records like so (the example is Field=Value):

? AAAAAAAAAA=Value1
? BBBBBBBBBB=Value2
? CCCCCCCCCC=Value3
? DDDDDDDDDD=Value4

And lets say I a second copy of my data but this time it looks like so:

? A=Value1
? B=Value2
? C=Value3
? D=Value4

I..e, same data, the only change is the field names?are now shorter

Now if?i create two Lucene indexes ... one using the long field name and one using the short field name (my data has not changed) .. will the Lucene index size be smaller for the short field name one?? Will updating and optimizing the index be faster?? Will searching be faster?

That is, i'm I better off using short field names vs. long field names?

Yes, i will do some performance analyses .. but i want to know if this matters before I do so.

Thanks in advance!

-JM

----------MB_8CA5A3556C555DF_964_4453_MBLK-M35.sysops.aol.com--