[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12617996#action_12617996
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1340:
-----------------------------------------
Yeah, it's one of my biggest regrets in Lucene (yes, I am responsible for it),
yet I firmly believe there is a way to do interfaces and abstracts in a proper
way in Java.
We could make LazyField extend AbstractField, I think, but it's not clear, as
there are some differences between the two, mostly around construction. I'd
have to go back and review again.
That being said, I still think if there is one place where we should allow
breaking the back compat. contract, it is Fieldable! For every rule, there is
an exception, right? I thinnk we could, w/ sufficient warning, tell people
that we are changing the interface. I am willing to bet that the number of
people that would be effected by that would be less than 10.
So, please don't give up on this patch. I am totally 100% for it. I think it
makes total sense to do.
Another option is to speed up going towards 3.0
> Make it posible not to include TF information in index
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1340
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1340
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Eks Dev
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch,
> LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch, LUCENE-1340.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 24h
> Remaining Estimate: 24h
>
> Term Frequency is typically not needed for all fields, some CPU (reading one
> VInt less and one X>>>1...) and IO can be spared by making pure boolen fields
> possible in Lucene. This topic has already been discussed and accepted as a
> part of Flexible Indexing... This issue tries to push things a bit faster
> forward as I have some concrete customer demands.
> benefits can be expected for fields that are typical candidates for Filters,
> enumerations, user rights, IDs or very short "texts", phone numbers, zip
> codes, names...
> Status: just passed standard test (compatibility), commited for early review,
> I have not tried new feature, missing some asserts and one two unit tests
> Complexity: simpler than expected
> can be used via omitTf() (who used omitNorms() will know where to find it :)
--
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]
