The index should be identical in these two cases as long as the
single string yields the same tokens during analysis as the
concatenation of the tokens from the separate strings.
So index size & search speed would be the same.
Mike
Darren Govoni wrote:
I guess I meant searching the index, size of index etc.
So they would search essentially the same?
Sorry that wasn't clear from my original email.
Darren
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erick Erickson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Which will be faster?
I wouldn't worry about it too much, since there'll be overhead for
you
building up the string in the first place as well. I suspect that the
time difference will be dwarfed by the indexing process. So I'd do
what's
easiest first.......
Erick
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:51 AM, darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Pardon the noob question. But which approach is going to be faster
over extremely large document sets. A or B?
A) Multiple field values, Stored.NO,TOKENIZED.
word: one
word: two
word: three
B) Single field value, Stored.NO,TOKENIZED
word: one two three
Thanks for the tip.
Darren
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
