[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12508426
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-272:
-----------------------------------
Note that my current fix to toDocument() for copyField isn't complete since the
previous implementation allowed copyField from an undefined field in the schema.
It might be cleaner just to use a field that isn't indexed or stored, but that
would be a slight backward incompatability.
Might be OK since I don't know if anyone has ever used that feature. Thoughts?
> SolrDocument performance testing
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-272
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Test
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Attachments: SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch,
> SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch,
> SolrDocumentPerformanceTester.java, SolrInputDoc.patch
>
>
> In 1.3, we added SolrInputDocument -- a temporary class to hold document
> information. There is concern that this may be less then ideal
> performance-wise.
> To settle some concerns (mine included) I want to compare a few SolrDocument
> implementations to make sure we are not doing something crazy.
> I implemented a LuceneInputDocument subclass of SolrInputDocument that stores
> its values directly in Lucene Document (rather then a Map<String,Collection>).
> This is a quick test comparing:
> 1. Building documents with SolrInputDocument
> 2. Building documents with LuceneInputDocument (same interface writing
> directly to Document)
> 3. using DocumentBuilder (solr 1.2, solr 1.1)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
