[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-584) Decouple Filter from BitSet

["Hoss Man (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12481263 ] 

Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-584:
---------------------------------

It's been a while since i looked at this issue, but it's come up in discussion recently so i took another glance...

Paul: I notice Filter.getMatcher returns null, and IndexSearcher tests for that and uses it to decide whether or not to iterator over the (non null) Matcher, or over the BitSet from Filter.bits.  is there any reason that logic can't be put in getMatcher, so that if subclasses of Filter don't override the getMatcher method it will call bits and then return a Matcher that iterates over the set Bits?

(this is the roll-out approach i advocated a while back when discussing this on email, excecept that at the time Matcher was refered to as SearchFilter: http://www.nabble.com/RE%3A-Filter-p2605271.html )

Thinking about it now, we could even change Filter.bits so it's no longer abstract ... it could have an implementation that would call getMatcher, and iterate over all of the matched docs setting bits on a BitSet that is then returned ... the class would still be abstract, and the class javadocs  would make it clear that subclasses must override at least one of the methods ... legacy Filters will work fine because they'll already have a bits method, and people writing new Filters will see that bits is deprecated, so they'll just write a getMatcher method and be done.

This appears to be the same approach taken with Analyzer.tokenStream back in 1.4.3...

http://lucene.apache.org/java/1_4_3/api/org/apache/lucene/analysis/Analyzer.html

> Decouple Filter from BitSet
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-584
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.1
>            Reporter: Peter Schäfer
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: BitsMatcher.java, Filter-20060628.patch, HitCollector-20060628.patch, IndexSearcher-20060628.patch, MatchCollector.java, Matcher.java, Matcher20070226.patch, Scorer-20060628.patch, Searchable-20060628.patch, Searcher-20060628.patch, Some Matchers.zip, SortedVIntList.java, TestSortedVIntList.java
>
>
> {code}
> package org.apache.lucene.search;
> public abstract class Filter implements java.io.Serializable 
> {
>   public abstract AbstractBitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException;
> }
> public interface AbstractBitSet 
> {
>   public boolean get(int index);
> }
> {code}
> It would be useful if the method =Filter.bits()= returned an abstract interface, instead of =java.util.BitSet=.
> Use case: there is a very large index, and, depending on the user's privileges, only a small portion of the index is actually visible.
> Sparsely populated =java.util.BitSet=s are not efficient and waste lots of memory. It would be desirable to have an alternative BitSet implementation with smaller memory footprint.
> Though it _is_ possibly to derive classes from =java.util.BitSet=, it was obviously not designed for that purpose.
> That's why I propose to use an interface instead. The default implementation could still delegate to =java.util.BitSet=.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org