doh! well if you have it, that will be very handy for verification. I'll create a separate issue for this shortly, maybe you can review the patch
Thanks, Robert On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Ack, actually two days ago I updated my Lucene trunk checkout and removed > that code, thinking its utility had evaporated! > > But maybe IntelliJ will save my bacon in its local history cache. (Praise > IntelliJ!) I'll check tonight when I get home. > > Steve > > On 11/19/2009 at 10:16 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > > Steven, do you still have a test setup to measure collation key > > generation performance with Lucene? > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > On 11/18/2009 at 7:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > Looking at the > > collation support, we could maybe improve > > IndexableBinaryStringTools > > by using char[]/byte[] with offset and > length. The existing > > ByteBuffer/CharBuffer methods could stay, they are > consistent with > > Charset api and are not wrong imo, but instead defer to > the new > > char[]/byte[] ones... the current buffer-based ones require the > > > buffer to have a backing array anyway or will throw an exception. > > > > > > +1 > > > > I used *Buffers because I thought it simplified method > > prototypes, no other reason. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Robert Muir > > rcm...@gmail.com > > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
