Re: Optimize and internal document order

[Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org>]

On 8/31/07, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
> If each document has an indexed id field in both indexes, then you could
> simply use a FieldCache of that id field in each index to determine the
> mapping.

I've thought about this approach, but I think it has some scalability issues...
It seems like the re-mapped ids from the secondary index would be
out-of-order, and thus would require caching & sorting of both ids and
scores from that index.

-Yonik

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

Re: Optimize and internal document order

[Andrzej Bialecki <ab...@getopt.org>]

Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> If each document has an indexed id field in both indexes, then you could
>> simply use a FieldCache of that id field in each index to determine the
>> mapping.
> 
> I've thought about this approach, but I think it has some scalability issues...
> It seems like the re-mapped ids from the secondary index would be
> out-of-order, and thus would require caching & sorting of both ids and
> scores from that index.

Thanks for the input - for now I gave up on this, after discovering that 
I would have no way to ensure in skipTo() that document id-s are 
monotonically increasing (which seems to be a part of the contract).


-- 
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki     <><
  ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _   __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/|  Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__||  \|  ||  |  Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com  Contact: info at sigram dot com


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