[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7240?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-7240:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-7240.patch
Here is a patch splitting it out.
I ran rough indexing benchmark with luceneutil:
previous (docvalues + points):
INDEX SIZE: 1.0679643917828798 GB
380.419779939 sec to index part 0
patch (points only)
INDEX SIZE: 0.6146336644887924 GB
359.832694579 sec to index part 0
So it doesn't buy you a lot on index time, but helps index-size if you don't
need sorting or similar. And it keeps the stuff organized similar to other
fields in core.
> Remove DocValues from LatLonPoint, add DocValuesField for that
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7240
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7240
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-7240.patch
>
>
> LatLonPoint needed two-phase intersection initially because of big
> inefficiencies, but as of LUCENE-7239 all of its query operations:
> {{newBoxQuery()}}, {{newDistanceQuery()}}, {{newPolygonQuery()}} and
> {{nearest()}} only need the points datastructure (BKD).
> If you want to do {{newDistanceSort()}} then you need docvalues for that, but
> I think it should be moved to a separate field: e.g. docvalues is optional
> just like any other field in lucene. We can add other methods that make sense
> to that new docvalues field (e.g. facet by distance/region, expressions
> support, whatever). It is really disjoint from the core query support: and
> also currently has a heavyish cost of ~64-bits per value in space.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
