Hi Christoph,
seems that you are right. I will check, if it is enough to store the information whether a field is compressed or not in the bit value only. Currently i have no idea why there was a change to FieldInfos necessary ;-)
I reviewed your patch. Looks great for me. However, I wonder why we need
isCompressed in FieldInfo? Beeing compressed or not seems to be a property of an
individual field more than of all fields in the index with a given name.
Furthermore, the isCompressed flag in FieldInfo is currently not used anywhere
outside FieldInfo and FieldInfos. Is it really needed?
you where definitly right. It's not necessary to do a change in FieldInfo class when adding the compression patch. So it will be removed from the new version of the patch.
Further idea: Wouldn't it be great to have a stored stringValued field thatyes you're right. I'll give it a try and check how an implementation could be done.
has the property "compressed" meaning that if the field is written with
FieldsWriter, it automatically is compressed and if it's read by FieldsReader,
it is automatically decompressed and transformed into a String? The field could
but does not have to be indexed/tokenized. This would mean that compressed
becomes a property of stored fields (binary or stringValued ones).
i did the implementation, so that one can optionally compress all string or binary field values.
before adding the new patch to Bugzilla, i want to run more tests and cleanup the code a bit.
With your current implementation a field that is indexed has to be dublicatedIf i got you're idea right, you want to have all fields which are stored, optionally compressed ?
if it is stored in compressed form.
regards bernhard
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
