[
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
