You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2012/05/20 11:06:41 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3312) Break out StorableField from
IndexableField
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13279704#comment-13279704 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3312:
---------------------------------------
While at the Lucene Revolution Conference, Mike and me discussed about "hiding" the internal Lucene document IDs from the public search/TopDocs API. As this is very related to this issue, we may thing about implementing this.
My idea was to let TopDocs directly return the SearchDocument classes, only addressed by its slot in the TopDocs. This way, we prevent the ongoing problems with users "thinking" that Lucene internal document IDs should be stable (which they aren't).
Of course in the expert APIs (Scorer, DocIDSet, FoildCache...) we still have the internal DocIDs, but the public facing APIs (executing a query and getting TopDocs) should not use internal DocIds. Robert already opened a new issue to "resurrect the crazy Hits" class (LUCENE-4052, but with it's problems fixed).
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Nikola Tankovic
> Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12
> Fix For: Field Type branch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org