Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

mark harwood
Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java?

_http://www.mail-archive.com/[hidden email]/msg00618.html_

It's a simple addition to avoid fieldName.intern() overheads by safely
constructing new Term objects from existing Term objects and re-using
it's pre-interned field name. The alternative solution would be to make
the existing Term(field, value, isInterned) constructor public with a
suitable javadoc warning about the caller ensuring use pre-interned
fieldnames.

The latest version of MemoryIndex is lingering in BugZilla waiting for
the above change. I'd like to update the contrib area with this too if
everyone is OK with this.
The MemoryIndex's justification for the Term change is here  
_http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34585_

Cheers
Mark


       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

Erik Hatcher

On Jun 29, 2005, at 4:26 PM, markharw00d wrote:

> Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java?
>
> _http://www.mail-archive.com/[hidden email]/msg00618.html_

This change looks good to me.  I would have committed it earlier if  
others had ok'd it.

     Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

Bernhard Messer
Erik Hatcher wrote:

>
> On Jun 29, 2005, at 4:26 PM, markharw00d wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java?
>>
>> _http://www.mail-archive.com/[hidden email]/msg00618.html_
>
>
> This change looks good to me.  I would have committed it earlier if  
> others had ok'd it.

i had a closer look to the implementation of the MemoryIndexer and the
necessary change to Term.java. The tests i made where very successful
and i am impressed of the performance.

+1

Bernhard

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]