[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2843?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12979347#action_12979347
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2843:
-------------------------------------
bq. Have you read anything at all?
Nope, havent looked at their code... i think i stopped at the documentation
when i saw how they analyzed text!
bq. Sorry, if I sound offending at times, but, damn, there's a whole world of
simple and efficient code lying ahead in that direction
So where is the problem?
You can make your own all-on-disk impl, or all-in-ram impl and contribute it?
And you dont have to implement terms dict cache,
thats contained in the implementation?
My problem is that we shouldnt assume all users can fit all their terms in RAM.
I think its great to offer alternative impls that work all in ram, and maybe if
termsdict < X where X is some configurable value,
even consider using these automatically in standardcodec... but i don't see any
benefit of 'forcing' this when we have this
whole flexible indexing thing!
> Add variable-gap terms index impl.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2843
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2843
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2843.patch, LUCENE-2843.patch
>
>
> PrefixCodedTermsReader/Writer (used by all "real" core codecs) already
> supports pluggable terms index impls.
> The only impl we have now is FixedGapTermsIndexReader/Writer, which
> picks every Nth (default 32) term and holds it in efficient packed
> int/byte arrays in RAM. This is already an enormous improvement (RAM
> reduction, init time) over 3.x.
> This patch adds another impl, VariableGapTermsIndexReader/Writer,
> which lets you specify an arbitrary IndexTermSelector to pick which
> terms are indexed, and then uses an FST to hold the indexed terms.
> This is typically even more memory efficient than packed int/byte
> arrays, though, it does not support ord() so it's not quite a fair
> comparison.
> I had to relax the terms index plugin api for
> PrefixCodedTermsReader/Writer to not assume that the terms index impl
> supports ord.
> I also did some cleanup of the FST/FSTEnum APIs and impls, and broke
> out separate seekCeil and seekFloor in FSTEnum. Eg we need seekFloor
> when the FST is used as a terms index but seekCeil when it's holding
> all terms in the index (ie which SimpleText uses FSTs for).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
