> 3) should we be concerned about letting people specify prefixes/suffixes
> of the fields they want to forcably load for dynamicFields instead of just
> a Set<String> of names? .. or should we cross that bridge when we come to
> it? (I ask because we have no cache aware method that takes in a
> FieldSelector, just the one that takes in the Set<String>)
It would be very easy to add a parallel method which takes a
FieldSelector. My only concern with that is that it might make it
hard to do cache flushing heuristics like you suggested above.
Yeah, I had thought about that and decided it was probably best left
out for now... one can always get the IndexReader and use it's methods
to provide uncached doc access with a FieldSelector.
-Yonik
