On Oct 20, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 10/20/07, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think one of the questions that will come up from users is when
should I use addMetadata and when should I use addField? Why make
the distinction to the user? Fields have always represented
metadata, all your doing is optimizing the internal storage of them.
So from an interface side of things, I would just make it a new Field
type.
Same thing occured to me...
Fieldable.isStoredSeparately()?
I wouldn't mind this byte[] access to any type of field stored
separately (non binary fields too). What about switching from char
counts to byte counts for indexed (String) fields that are stored
separately?
I guess fields that were stored separately would not be returned
unless asked for by name?
Right, I would think the typical use case would be you want all the
"small" fields to be returned w/ the document and the large fields to
be lazily loaded. I think it should be seamless to the user.
Perhaps we could have a threshold value upon indexing, such that all
fields below are determined to be small, and all above are large,
then at retrieval time we just compare the byte count to the
threshold and lazy load the large fields.
Just a thought. There are probably several ways this could be handled.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
