lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From MilleBii <mille...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Storing a serialized object ?
Date Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:31:20 GMT
OK thanks for the tip on Java object serialization performance.
Most of what I have to store/retrieve is straightforward so I can do it by
hand.
What pushed me on object serialization is that I want to store/retrieve text
fragment of undefined content.


2009/7/4 Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@googlemail.com>

> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Uwe Schindler<uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >> That is one way, or you do it base64 encoded in a text field if don't
> >> care about space at all. :)
> just for clarification:
> one way Java Object Serialization - is not efficient at all It takes a
> lot of space and performance is crap.
> other way BASE64 encoded - might take even more space and time but
> uses string field
>
> >
> > Lucene also have binary fields for storing. Searching on such fields does
> > not make sense, so its ok to not be able to index them (how should that
> > work).
> >
> > I have this use case, too. Sometimes it is senseful to store arbitrary
> > objects as stored fields in the index and use then e.g. when displaying
> > search results.
> This usecase is totally valid I just doubt that storing a java object
> in there make a lot of sense (By using Java Object Serialization) as
> it is so damn slow. Many efficient serialization methods are around to
> do that way faster in a compact way.
>
> simon
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-MilleBii-

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