lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danil ŢORIN <torin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: any good idea for loading fields into memory?
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:12:03 GMT
If you can afford it, you could add one additional untokenized stored
field that will contain the serialized(one way or another) form of the
document.

Add FieldCache on top of it, and return it right away.

But we are getting into the area where you basically have to keep all
your documents in memory.

In this situation, maybe it simply doesn't make sense to over
complicate things: just keep your index in memory (as it is right now,
no additional fields or field caches), and retrieving document would
be fast enough simply because all data is in RAM.


On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Li Li <fancyerii@gmail.com> wrote:
> use collector and field cache is a good idea for ranking by certain
> field's value.
> but I just need to return matched documents' fields. and also field
> cache can't store multi-value fields?
> I have to store special chars like '\n' to separate them and split
> string to string array in runtime.
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Paul Hill <paul@metajure.com> wrote:
>> I would ask the question that if you want to look at the whole value of a field during
searching, why don't you have a just such a field in your index?
>> I have an index with several fields that have 2 versions of the field both analyzed
and unanalyzed.  It works great for me in 3.x (not 4.x).
>> Have you read about Collectors?  That is where I find myself working with field
caches, but maybe this is not your need. I also properly configured the call to search.doc(
docId ) with the second argument,
>> so I only automatically load the fields I will be using in my returned results, not
any 'extra' fields use in Filters, Collectors etc.  If you have a special query that needs
to be extra fast, you can change the fields to load just in the special code for that special
query.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Li Li [mailto:fancyerii@gmail.com]
>>> but as l can remember, in 2.9.x FieldCache can only apply to indexed but not
analyzed fields.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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