Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 32597 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2006 18:23:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Oct 2006 18:23:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 42207 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2006 18:23:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 42186 invoked by uid 500); 9 Oct 2006 18:23:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 42176 invoked by uid 99); 9 Oct 2006 18:23:54 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:23:54 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 64.233.182.189 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.182.189] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.189) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:23:53 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c2so20786nfe for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ZAO35NoE3NCJ1KHjgUrEPWjoD8Wgj6580Yu3Xm2g/Hx5F/J4zDXrSErjgzYp0DAUHPfQPbwSsDGdUoVMarfuQT3tZ5l4JlH5SSdHTY7+pLRlIU2VOV5nf0ttxuZrG9kj+L4t2T4bILjIC6nXOoZ4TQqQi1P/IM6t7A2QmB/xaj4= Received: by 10.82.142.9 with SMTP id p9mr688408bud; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.149.12 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:23:31 -0400 From: "Yonik Seeley" Sender: yseeley@gmail.com To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Re: [jira] Created: (SOLR-52) Lazy Field loading In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5934485.1160192959509.JavaMail.root@brutus> <3d2ce8cb0610081704s27a75cd0iccf46f1dab932fbd@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: d89e1b8ed75c755f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 10/9/06, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. Lazy fields hold > : on to a stream and an offset, and operate by seek()'ing to the right > ... > > Hmmm... yeah it sounds like it shouldn't matter. If i get soem time i'll > try to do a micro benchmark to compare loading a doc with one field and > then loading the rest lazy vs loading the doc twice. If lazy loading is ever shown to be a performance problem, a simple solution would be to have a switch in solrconfig.xml to disable it. -Yonik