On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Yonik Seeley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ryan McKinley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> (i changed the subject to see if Uwe perks up)
>>
>> Is it possible to change the FieldCache for Trie* fields so that it
>> knows what fields are missing? or is there something about the Trie
>> structure that makes that impossible.
>
> Nope - it is trivial to record that while the entry is being built for
> all of the current FieldCache entry types - it's just not currently
> done. After it is recorded (via a bitset most likely), it needs to be
> exposed via an API.
>
Looking at the FieldCache (first time ever), I'm not sure I see an
obvious place to augment the cache with a BitSet for the matching
docs.
We could add a function to the FieldCache like:
public BitSet getMatchingDocs(IndexReader reader, String field )
That would cache the matching docs for a field, however that means you
would have to traverse the terms twice. The existing API for caching
values stores the values (short[], int[], etc) not the Entry, so
augmenting the cached Entry with a BitSet would get lost.
It seems that this could be done, but would require some rejiggering
to the API. The API could return an object like:
class ByteValues {
byte[] values;
BitSet valid;
}
public ByteValues getBytes (IndexReader reader, String field)
Another option (just brainstorming) would be to set the arrays to a
special value to say they are 'missing' for example
Integer.MIN_VALUE. The downside of this is that we lose one valid
value in the range. For int, double, float, this may be OK, but for
byte and short this is a pretty big tradeoff.
Ideas for what may be a good path forward?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
