[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5914?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-5914:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-5914.patch
I added explicit tests for both these null conditions. Logic is unchanged: we
have explicit null check everywhere.
Lucene is bogus about null checks like this everywhere: it hurts nobody's
performance to do it here and its silly to have something like an aborting
exception in indexwriter lose somebody's documents when it could have been
prevented.
I'm not going to be placed into a defensive posture where I must defend doing
the right thing. IMO we can just not have this stored fields option, too. But
if we are going to accept options which we must support with backwards
compatibility in tthe default codec, then we should check the parameters.
> More options for stored fields compression
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5914
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5914
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Assignee: Adrien Grand
> Fix For: 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5914.patch, LUCENE-5914.patch, LUCENE-5914.patch,
> LUCENE-5914.patch, LUCENE-5914.patch, LUCENE-5914.patch, LUCENE-5914.patch,
> LUCENE-5914.patch
>
>
> Since we added codec-level compression in Lucene 4.1 I think I got about the
> same amount of users complaining that compression was too aggressive and that
> compression was too light.
> I think it is due to the fact that we have users that are doing very
> different things with Lucene. For example if you have a small index that fits
> in the filesystem cache (or is close to), then you might never pay for actual
> disk seeks and in such a case the fact that the current stored fields format
> needs to over-decompress data can sensibly slow search down on cheap queries.
> On the other hand, it is more and more common to use Lucene for things like
> log analytics, and in that case you have huge amounts of data for which you
> don't care much about stored fields performance. However it is very
> frustrating to notice that the data that you store takes several times less
> space when you gzip it compared to your index although Lucene claims to
> compress stored fields.
> For that reason, I think it would be nice to have some kind of options that
> would allow to trade speed for compression in the default codec.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
