You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by jitender ahuja <aj...@aalayance.com> on 2004/05/15 13:00:11 UTC
"UnStored" vs "Reader"
Hi all,
Is there a basic difference between the "UnStored" and the "Reader" field types?
Regards,
Jitender
Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
jitender ahuja wrote:
> If there is no difference then is there an underlying basic difference
> or just a simple redundancy (both types performing the same job) is there? I
> feel that it cann't be a simple redundancy.
For unstored fields, Lucene only requires sequential access to the
characters. A Reader permits data to be streamed into the index: the
entire text need never be held in memory at once. For application
convenience and consistency with stored fields, one can also provide
strings for unstored field values.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
Posted by Terry Steichen <te...@net-frame.com>.
Actually, I had never thought about this particular question before, but I
think the question is a fair and reasonable - no reason to get frustrated
about it. There's a lot about Lucene that's obvious to those who've studied
it as extensively as has Erik (and I, like much of us, are anxiously
awaiting his book). But there're also plenty of folks (myself included) who
are pretty familiar with Lucene but still find some of the many potentially
interesting features still a bit mysterious.
Regards,
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hatcher" <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: "Lucene Developers List" <lu...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
> On May 16, 2004, at 12:16 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
> > If there is no difference then is there an underlying basic
> > difference
> > or just a simple redundancy (both types performing the same job) is
> > there? I
> > feel that it cann't be a simple redundancy.
>
> I can't help but feel a bit frustrated by this question. Lucene is
> open source, and if you are really curious about the internals, crack
> it open and have a look. Field.java is a pretty simplistic class, and
> easy to understand. The only difference is one take a Reader and the
> other a String for the field value - and internally a String is
> converted to a StringReader. So it's not redundant since the input
> types are different, but the basic flags set on them are identical.
>
> Erik
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jitender
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erik Hatcher" <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>
> > To: "Lucene Developers List" <lu...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On May 15, 2004, at 7:00 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
> >>> Is there a basic difference between the "UnStored" and the
> >>> "Reader" field types?
> >>
> >> No difference at all in how they are handled. Both indexed, and
> >> tokenized, and not stored.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On May 16, 2004, at 12:16 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
> If there is no difference then is there an underlying basic
> difference
> or just a simple redundancy (both types performing the same job) is
> there? I
> feel that it cann't be a simple redundancy.
I can't help but feel a bit frustrated by this question. Lucene is
open source, and if you are really curious about the internals, crack
it open and have a look. Field.java is a pretty simplistic class, and
easy to understand. The only difference is one take a Reader and the
other a String for the field value - and internally a String is
converted to a StringReader. So it's not redundant since the input
types are different, but the basic flags set on them are identical.
Erik
> Thanks,
> Jitender
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Hatcher" <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>
> To: "Lucene Developers List" <lu...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
>
>
>>
>> On May 15, 2004, at 7:00 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
>>> Is there a basic difference between the "UnStored" and the
>>> "Reader" field types?
>>
>> No difference at all in how they are handled. Both indexed, and
>> tokenized, and not stored.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
Posted by jitender ahuja <aj...@aalayance.com>.
Hi,
If there is no difference then is there an underlying basic difference
or just a simple redundancy (both types performing the same job) is there? I
feel that it cann't be a simple redundancy.
Thanks,
Jitender
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hatcher" <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: "Lucene Developers List" <lu...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
>
> On May 15, 2004, at 7:00 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
> > Is there a basic difference between the "UnStored" and the
> > "Reader" field types?
>
> No difference at all in how they are handled. Both indexed, and
> tokenized, and not stored.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: "UnStored" vs "Reader"
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On May 15, 2004, at 7:00 AM, jitender ahuja wrote:
> Is there a basic difference between the "UnStored" and the
> "Reader" field types?
No difference at all in how they are handled. Both indexed, and
tokenized, and not stored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org