On Sunday 05 October 2003 03:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here are some very important reasons why getTerms() shouldn't be added as a > method to Query: > > Query objects are seen by Lucene users as reusable objects.
I think that is a good point from design/architecture perspective. > These query types are important distinctions to preserve and the getTerms() > proposal doesn't respect these subtle differences in query usage. It'd good to keep in mind, though, that it's possible to implement this without requiring queries to have state. Term collector's state could be passed either when query is actually executed, or as a separate step. Former would be more optimal, in the sense that Terms can probably be collected only once; second would allow cleaner separation. When this was discussed last time, I suggested that perhaps overhead of the second pass is general not a huge issue, mostly since highlighting is usually only done for one document. But more importantly, it would be good to measure exactly how long separate Term collection phase would take for some realistic index and matching queries, and compare that to actual query execution time. And then decide if the performance overhead of double scanning of Terms is significant to be an issue. -+ Tatu +- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
