On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> My takeaway from the prior conversation was that various people didn't >> entirely believe that I'd seen a dramatic improvement in query perfo >> using D-P-F, and so would not smile upon a patch intended to liberate >> D-P-F from codecs. It could be that the effect I saw has to do with >> the fact that our system depends on hitting and scoring 50% of the >> documents in an index with a lot of documents. >> > > I dont understand the word "liberate" here. why is it such a problem > that this is a codec?
I don't want to have to declare my intentions at the time I create the index. I don't want to have to use D-P-F for all readers all the time. Because I want to be able to decide to open up an index with an arbitrary on-disk format and get the in-memory cache behavior of D-P-F. Thus 'liberate' -- split the question of 'keep a copy in memory' from the choice of the on-disk format. > > i do not think we should give it any more status than that, it wastes > too much ram. It didn't seem like 'waste' when it solved a big practical for us. We had an application that was too slow, and had plenty of RAM available, and we were able to trade space for time by applying D-P-F. Maybe I'm going about this backwards; if I can come up with a small, inconspicuous proposed change that does what I want, there won't be any disagreement. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
