Le Jeudi 20 Juillet 2006 22:18, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : > On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote: > > Then I looked deeper in the Lucene file format, and I manage to > > introduce some > > generic field metadata without breaking the file format > > compatibility. I just > > used another bit of the "Bits" to mark that there is or not some > > metadata on > > the field. And the metadata is stored next to it : > > DocFieldData --> FieldCount, <FieldNum, Bits, FieldMetadata, > > Value>^FieldCount > > FieldMetadata --> ValueSize, <Byte>^ValueSize > > My thought is instead of providing an ever-lengthening fixed menu of > field-types to choose from, that the menu should be per-index and the > codec should be indicated by an integer pointing to a spot on that menu.
In fact, that was my first implementaion. The problem with that is you can only store one value. But thinking a little more about it, storing one or more value is not an issue, because with the solution I proposed, no space is saved at all. In fact, when I thought about this format of field metadata, I was thinking about a way to make the Lucene user specify how to store it in the Lucene index format. For instance, the simple one would specify that it's a pointeur on some metadata (as you proposed), another one would specify that there are two pointeurs (in my use case, one for type, the other one for the language), and another one whould specify that it will be store directly as it is actually an integer (so no need to make a pointer on integer. But it was just a thought, I don't know if it is possible. WDYT ? > > Does this feature interest the Lucene commiters ? Should I provide > > a patch in > > Jira? If not, is there any common place where to provide some patch > > for some > > Lucene hackers (ie not necessaraily commiters) ? > > > > So, Marvin, could you provide your patch about payload ? > > I'm totally slammed this month because I got a talk accepted at OSCON > late and so I'm taking an unexpected week off in the midst of a very > busy time. So, have a nice OSCON ! ;) > There is not a patch per se, in any case. Oh yes of course. In fact Michael have already done something, I have switched the names, sorry. So, Michael, could you provide your patch about payload ? > > And is there a wiki page where there is a starting point about > > defining the > > future index format ? > > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/FlexibleIndexing ok thank you. Nicolas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
