[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10603?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17563912#comment-17563912
]
Greg Miller commented on LUCENE-10603:
--------------------------------------
It looks like the only remaining work is to:
# Remove the NO_MORE_ORDS definition
# Update all the SortedSetDocValue implementations to stop returning
NO_MORE_ORDS in nextOrd()
# Remove all the test assertions that validate that SSDV#nextOrd() returns
NO_MORE_ORDS
This should all be main branch work, and not something we backport to 9.x. I
think 9.x is now good.
> Improve iteration of ords for SortedSetDocValues
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10603
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10603
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Lu Xugang
> Assignee: Lu Xugang
> Priority: Trivial
> Time Spent: 5h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> After SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount added since Lucene 9.2, should we
> refactor the implementation of ords iterations using docValueCount instead of
> NO_MORE_ORDS?
> Similar how SortedNumericDocValues did
> From
> {code:java}
> for (long ord = values.nextOrd();ord != SortedSetDocValues.NO_MORE_ORDS; ord
> = values.nextOrd()) {
> }{code}
> to
> {code:java}
> for (int i = 0; i < values.docValueCount(); i++) {
> long ord = values.nextOrd();
> }{code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
