lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <>
Subject Re: Extending Sort/FieldCache
Date Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:03:12 GMT
I think CSF hasn't been implemented because it's only marginally
useful yet requires fairly significant rewrites of core code
(i.e. SegmentMerger) so no one's picked it up including myself.
An interim solution that fulfills the same function (quickly
loading field cache values) using what works reliably today
(i.e. payloads) is a good simple forward moving step.

Shai, feel free to open an issue and post your code. I'd will
check it out and help where possible.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Shai Erera <> wrote:
> I didn't say we won't need CSF, but that at least conceptually, CSF and my
> sort-by-payload are the same. If however it turns out that CSF performs
> better, then I'll definitely switch my sort-by-payload package to use it. I
> thought that CSF is going to be implemented using payloads, but perhaps I'm
> wrong.
> Shai
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Yonik Seeley <>wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Shai Erera<> wrote:
>> >> I've resisted using payloads for this purpose in Solr because it felt
>> >> like an interim hack until CSF is implemented.
>> >
>> > I don't see it as a hack, but as a proper use of a great feature in
>> Lucene.
>> It's proper use for an application perhaps, but not for core Lucene.
>> Applications are pretty much required to work with what's given in
>> Lucene... but Lucene developers can make better choices.  Hence if at
>> all possible, work should be put into implementing CSF rather than
>> sorting by payloads.
>> > CSF and this are essentially the same.
>> In which case we wouldn't need CSF?
>> -Yonik
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message