Re: Omit positions but not TF

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: > How about opening an issue?  This way someone else can come along and > pick up the torch... +1 > > Mike > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >> Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >>> >>> Michael McCandless wrote:

Re: Omit positions but not TF

How about opening an issue? This way someone else can come along and pick up the torch... Mike On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >> >> Michael McCandless wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I guess we'd add a Fieldable.setOmitPositions?  And then save that

Re: Omit positions but not TF

Andrzej Bialecki wrote: Michael McCandless wrote: +1 I guess we'd add a Fieldable.setOmitPositions? And then save that in FieldInfos, and fix the postings writing/reading to respect it? Ie, we can just change the index format. Encoding as negative numbers Yes, that's what I had in mind. I

Re: Omit positions but not TF

Michael McCandless wrote: +1 I guess we'd add a Fieldable.setOmitPositions? And then save that in FieldInfos, and fix the postings writing/reading to respect it? Ie, we can just change the index format. Encoding as negative numbers Yes, that's what I had in mind. I was a bit shy of bumping

Re: Omit positions but not TF

+1 I guess we'd add a Fieldable.setOmitPositions? And then save that in FieldInfos, and fix the postings writing/reading to respect it? Ie, we can just change the index format. Encoding as negative numbers isn't great because the termFreq is written as a vInt, which consumes 5 bytes to encode a