Chris McDonough wrote:
> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> 2008/12/27 Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com>:
>>> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>>> I also made an implementation for the FieldIndex that may not be too
>>>> optimal, but I'm currently most interested in clean and universal
>>>> IIndexSort definition that any index could efficiently implement.
>>> I've done this work too... but outside zope.index... please see (for
>>> It's reasonably optimized.
>> Thanks for the point. That's something I was going to write to add
>> optimizations for FieldIndex sorting, now I only need to adapt your
>> code and that's great! :-)
> There are many tests in there too. Note that the algorithms came mostly from
> the Zope 2 Catalog code. The only things I'm less than sure about in there
> - the computation of when to use n-best and lazy (there are constants in there
> stolen from Zope 2).
> - The fact that when we need to sort in reverse order we can't be lazy.
> I.e. in the branch that reads:
> # If the result set is not much larger than the number
> # of documents in this index, or if we need to sort in
> # reverse order, use a non-lazy sort.
> BTree values can't be iterated in reverse order, that's why we don't try
> the lazy case here if it's a reverse sort. There may be a better way to
> do this.
>> However, the more important thing for now is the IIndexSort interface
>> declaration. Is it okay and fits any possible sortable index? ;-)
> It looks like we came up with the same interface independently; I think
> that's a
> good sign.
One difference is that the repoze.catalog implementation skips docids that
aren't in the index rather than raising a KeyError. I think I like the KeyError
> - C
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -