I also had similar problem. It was essentially a 'group by'-like
requirement. I used both get(fieldName) and getTermFreqVector(...),
it seemed that get(fieldName) on a page of results (say, 10 results
per page) was faster than getTermFreqVector() for me.
ray,
On 7/29/05, mark harwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a faster way to access the total hits
> > count??
>
> The solution I outlined could be adapted to work
> across multiple indexes - you'd just have to aggregate
> the totals.
>
> If going from all category terms to matching doc ids
> is slow you could do it the other way going from
> matching doc ids to terms.
>
> You can feasibly do this by :
> a) IndexReader.document(hitDocId).get("category")
> or
> b)
> IndexReader.getTermFreqVector(hitDocId,"category").getTerms()
>
> Unfortunately a) reads ALL fields for a doc off the
> disk and is probably very slow. b) would be quicker
> but would require you to index with TermFreqVector
> support.
> I'm not sure if b) would be faster than the term to
> docids approach I originally suggested - you'd have to
> try it and see how it performs on your data.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
