> But when you create an untokenized field (or even a binary field, which is > stored-only at the moment), you could theoretically index the bytes directly
Right, if I already have a BytesRef of what needs to be indexed, then passing the BR into Field/able should reduce garbage collection of strings? On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I think Jason meant the field value, not the field name. > > Field names should stay Strings, as they are only "identifiers" making them > BytesRefs is not really useful. > > But when you create an untokenized field (or even a binary field, which is > stored-only at the moment), you could theoretically index the bytes directly. > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: [email protected] > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Muir [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Field should accept BytesRef? >> >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Jason Rutherglen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > In the Field object a text value must be of type string, however I >> > think we can allow a BytesRef to be passed in? >> > >> >> it would be nice if we sorted them in byte order too? I think right now >> fields >> are sorted in utf-16 order, but terms are sorted in utf-8 order? (if so, >> this is >> confusing) >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional >> commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
