[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2380?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12867534#action_12867534 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-2380: -------------------------------------- One thing to keep in mind is that the current way of returning shared BytesRef objects often forces one to make a copy. We should perhaps consider allowing a BytesRef to be passed in. {code} // returning shared BytesRef forces a copy for(;;) { BytesRef val1 = new BytesRef(getValue(doc1)) // make a copy BytesRef val2 = getValue(doc2) int cmp = val1.compareTo(val2) // allowing BytesRef to be passed in means no copy BytesRef val1 = new BytesRef(); BytesRef val2 = new BytesRef(); for(;;) { getValue(doc1, val1) getValue(doc2, val2) int cmp = val1.compareTo(val2) } {code} > Add FieldCache.getTermBytes, to load term data as byte[] > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-2380 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2380 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Search > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Fix For: 4.0 > > > With flex, a term is now an opaque byte[] (typically, utf8 encoded unicode > string, but not necessarily), so we need to push this up the search stack. > FieldCache now has getStrings and getStringIndex; we need corresponding > methods to load terms as native byte[], since in general they may not be > representable as String. This should be quite a bit more RAM efficient too, > for US ascii content since each character would then use 1 byte not 2. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org