You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Todd VanderVeen <td...@part.net> on 2005/02/09 23:11:45 UTC

Re: Storage Cost of Indexed, Untokenized Fields

Is there an additional storage cost to flagging an untokenized, indexed 
field as stored? Is the flag just for indicating that it be returned in 
result sets? I assume storage for tokenized fields is managed 
separately, but am curious if untokenized fields are resolved from the 
native index structure?

Thanks,
Todd VanderVeen

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

Re: Storage Cost of Indexed, Untokenized Fields

Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.

On Feb 9, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Todd VanderVeen wrote:

> Is there an additional storage cost to flagging an untokenized, 
> indexed field as stored? Is the flag just for indicating that it be 
> returned in result sets? I assume storage for tokenized fields is 
> managed separately, but am curious if untokenized fields are resolved 
> from the native index structure?

There can be multiple untokenized values per field - you could add 
multiple Field.Keyword()'s with the same field name.  Stored field 
values are separate from the inverted index.  So yes there is an 
additional storage cost.

	Erik

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