[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Paul Elschot updated LUCENE-584:
--------------------------------
Attachment: Matcher-core20070725.patch
Matcher-default20070725.patch
Matcher-ground20070725.patch
The whole thing in three patches:
The Matcher-ground patch is the groundwork, which should be very similar to the
earlier groundwork patch.
The Matcher-default patch provides a default implementation, the same as the
one I posted earlier today. Among others, It includes OpenBitSet from solr in
org.apache.lucene.util .
The Matcher-core uses the default implementation inside the rest of the lucene
core and test code. It replaces Filter.bits() methods with Filter.getMatcher()
methods in the subclasses of Filter.
All core tests pass with these patches aplied., except the one below.
I could not determine why this test fails, and the only
reason I can think of now is that Matcher is not serializable.
Could someone give me a clue on this?
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.lucene.search.TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter
[junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 1.32 sec
[junit]
[junit] Testcase:
testTermRemoteFilter(org.apache.lucene.search.TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter):
FAIL
[junit] expected:<1> but was:<0>
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<1> but was:<0>
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.search.TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter.search(TestRemoteCachingWrapperFiava:84)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.search.TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter.testTermRemoteFilter(TestRemoteCarapperFilter.java:109)
[junit]
[junit]
[junit] Test org.apache.lucene.search.TestRemoteCachingWrapperFilter FAILED
Finally, contrib may not even compile with the patches applied.
I used a version of Filter with an abstract getMatcher() method for the
Matcher-core patch,
and I also used that to cut the explicit BitSet things from my contrib working
copy.
However, I don't want to provide a patch for contrib yet, it's too far from
ready here,
and I'd like some comments on how to go about that first.
> Decouple Filter from BitSet
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-584
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.0.1
> Reporter: Peter Schäfer
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: bench-diff.txt, bench-diff.txt, BitsMatcher.java,
> DefaultMatcher20070725.patch, Filter-20060628.patch,
> HitCollector-20060628.patch, IndexSearcher-20060628.patch,
> MatchCollector.java, Matcher-core20070725.patch,
> Matcher-default20070725.patch, Matcher-ground20070725.patch, Matcher.java,
> Scorer-20060628.patch, Searchable-20060628.patch, Searcher-20060628.patch,
> Some Matchers.zip, SortedVIntList.java, TestSortedVIntList.java
>
>
> {code}
> package org.apache.lucene.search;
> public abstract class Filter implements java.io.Serializable
> {
> public abstract AbstractBitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException;
> }
> public interface AbstractBitSet
> {
> public boolean get(int index);
> }
> {code}
> It would be useful if the method =Filter.bits()= returned an abstract
> interface, instead of =java.util.BitSet=.
> Use case: there is a very large index, and, depending on the user's
> privileges, only a small portion of the index is actually visible.
> Sparsely populated =java.util.BitSet=s are not efficient and waste lots of
> memory. It would be desirable to have an alternative BitSet implementation
> with smaller memory footprint.
> Though it _is_ possibly to derive classes from =java.util.BitSet=, it was
> obviously not designed for that purpose.
> That's why I propose to use an interface instead. The default implementation
> could still delegate to =java.util.BitSet=.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
