What do you means by 'Most caches are held in WeakHashMap...' is this caching provided by CachingWrappingFilter or do we have to implement it ourselves? I assume the former.
We will share results of our testing as soon as we have any - not sure how generalizable they will be. You have been super helpful! Very grateful! Thanks! On 10/24/07, markharw00d <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > lucene user wrote: > > Thanks for all your help! > > > > We are using Lucene 2.1.0 and TermsFilter seems to be new in Lucene > 2.2.0. > > I have not been able to find SortedVIntList in the javadocs at all. > > > > No, SortedVIntList is in the patch I provided a link to earlier. > > > > Because both SortedVIntList and a regular BitSet are based on Lucene > > Document Numbers, which are not permanent, It seems we will need to > > generate these objects fresh at least once per session. Any comments, > > about that? Do I have that correct? > > > Yes. Most caches tend to be held in WeakHashMap keyed on IndexReader so > that when a new reader takes over old caches are automatically garbage > collected. > > > > Our application includes the following filter implementation that we use > for > > a > > slightly different end user category problem. We could easily use it for > our > > current problem as well. > > > > Is TermsFilter sufficiently better (faster, more compact, more correct, > > etc.) to make upgrading > > very important? > > > TermsFilter is in "contrib" and is stand-alone so should work with most > Lucene versions. > Your implementation looks to scan the whole termEnum whereas TermsFilter > looks up only the selected terms using reader.termDocs(term). > Benchmarking will tell you which is faster. I'd be interested to know > the results. > > Cheers > Mark > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
