[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12913710#action_12913710
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2649:
--------------------------------------------
bq. What's the issue with just putting the bits reference down on CachedArray?
One risk was added insanity cases, ie you looked up once w/ the bits and later
w/o and it double-stores the values array.
Another gain of separating the bits retrieval is it becomes possible to get
only the valid bits (ie, w/o a value array), for apps that just want to know if
a given doc had a field.
But we could probably still achieve these two benefits while using a single
class for looking up everything "cached" about a field? Ie, the CachedArray
could return non-null bits but null values?
> FieldCache should include a BitSet for matching docs
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2649
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2649
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch,
> LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch, LUCENE-2649-FieldCacheWithBitSet.patch
>
>
> The FieldCache returns an array representing the values for each doc.
> However there is no way to know if the doc actually has a value.
> This should be changed to return an object representing the values *and* a
> BitSet for all valid docs.
--
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
