[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8041?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16509023#comment-16509023
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-8041:
-------------------------------------

{quote}
That sounds like the cart leading the horse (allowing how CheckIndex works 
today prevent us from remaking how we want Lucene to be tomorrow). Can't we 
just relax what CheckIndex checks here – like have it check but report a 
warning if only some docs have TVs and others not which is generally not 
normal? I think that's what you're getting at but I'm not sure. I've only 
looked at CheckIndex in passing.
{quote}

That's absolutely not the case at all. The user is allowed to do this, hence 
checkindex must validate it. Please don't make checkindex the bad guy here, its 
not. The problem is related to indexwriter allowing users to do this.

> All Fields.terms(fld) impls should be O(1) not O(log(N))
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-8041
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8041
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: LUCENE-8041.patch
>
>
> I've seen apps that have a good number of fields -- hundreds.  The O(log(N)) 
> of TreeMap definitely shows up in a profiler; sometimes 20% of search time, 
> if I recall.  There are many Field implementations that are impacted... in 
> part because Fields is the base class of FieldsProducer.  
> As an aside, I hope Fields to go away some day; FieldsProducer should be 
> TermsProducer and not have an iterator of fields. If DocValuesProducer 
> doesn't have this then why should the terms index part of our API have it?  
> If we did this then the issue here would be a simple transition to a HashMap.
> Or maybe we can switch to HashMap and relax the definition of Fields.iterator 
> to not necessarily be sorted?
> Perhaps the fix can be a relatively simple conversion over to LinkedHashMap 
> in many cases if we can assume when we initialize these internal maps that we 
> consume them in sorted order to begin with.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to