Hi,
I have just updated to lucene 1.9, and hit a problem with the
mentioned optimization. I have applied it to the my
JdbcBufferedOutput (I only duplicate the code because the BUFFER_SIZE
is final), and I hit a problem. In the following code fragment (the
method is writeBytes):
...
} else {
// is data larger then buffer?
if (length > BUFFER_SIZE) {
// we flush the buffer
if (bufferPosition > 0)
flush();
// and write data at once
flushBuffer(b, length);
} else {
...
the bufferStart is not incremented after the flushBuffer method is
called. So if someone calls getFilePointer just afterwards, it will
give the wrong result (hit it with the compound format). A simple fix
would be to add bufferStart += length; just after flushBuffer.
By the way, is there a chance that BufferedIndexInput and
BufferedIndexOutput will have the buffer size as a member variable,
with a setter (or at least protected visibility), so I won't have to
duplicate the buffer support in Jdbc?
Shay
On 15 Feb 2006, at 12:25, Maxim Patramanskij wrote:
Doug,
what about including optimization of BuffereIndexOutput.writeBytes()
method:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-435?page=all ]
made by Lukas Zapletal, into 1.9?
I'm wondering, because this can decrease index creation time, which I
discovered as critical when using Lucene together with JDBCDirectory.
Max
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
