[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13213477#comment-13213477
]
Dawid Weiss edited comment on LUCENE-3807 at 2/22/12 9:16 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for being late, work. I like the patch. Comments:
{noformat}
+ public Comparator<BytesRef> getComparator() {
+ return null;
+ }
{noformat}
This shows up in a number of places. I have mixed feelings about certain types
having a comparator and others not having it, but it's minor.
BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper is a nuisance (buffers in memory). It would be
nicer to have a sort on disk if something doesn't support sorted iteration
order.
I also wonder float -> long = 4 -> 8 bytes... would this count as an
incompatible API change (because what used to work for a given amount of RAM
won't work anymore -- BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper again)?
{noformat}
+ if (l1 < l2) {
+ aStop = l1;
+ } else {
+ aStop = l2;
+ }
{noformat}
if I remember correctly Math.min/max are intrinsics, so you can afford to be
explicit ;)
Why not a specific covariant here?
{noformat}
- public Float get(String key) {
+ public Object get(CharSequence key) {
{noformat}
This doesn't seem necessary (lookup accepts a CharSequence?).
{noformat}
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ public class LookupBenchmarkTest extends LuceneTestCase {
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int v = 0;
for (String term : input) {
- v += lookup.lookup(term, onlyMorePopular, num).size();
+ v += lookup.lookup(new CharsRef(term), onlyMorePopular,
num).size();
{noformat}
I like the rest, including the CharSequenceish evilness of bytesToCharSequence
:)
was (Author: dweiss):
Sorry for being late, work. I like the patch. Comments:
+ public Comparator<BytesRef> getComparator() {
+ return null;
+ }
This shows up in a number of places. I have mixed feelings about certain types
having a comparator and others not having it, but it's minor.
BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper is a nuisance (buffers in memory). It would be
nicer to have a sort on disk if something doesn't support sorted iteration
order.
I also wonder float -> long = 4 -> 8 bytes... would this count as an
incompatible API change (because what used to work for a given amount of RAM
won't work anymore -- BufferingTermFreqIteratorWrapper again)?
+ if (l1 < l2) {
+ aStop = l1;
+ } else {
+ aStop = l2;
+ }
if I remember correctly Math.min/max are intrinsics, so you can afford to be
explicit ;)
Why not a specific covariant here?
- public Float get(String key) {
+ public Object get(CharSequence key) {
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ public class LookupBenchmarkTest extends LuceneTestCase {
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int v = 0;
for (String term : input) {
- v += lookup.lookup(term, onlyMorePopular, num).size();
+ v += lookup.lookup(new CharsRef(term), onlyMorePopular,
num).size();
This doesn't seem necessary (lookup accepts a CharSequence?).
I like the rest, including the CharSequenceish evilness of bytesToCharSequence
:)
> Cleanup suggester API
> ---------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3807
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3807
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/other
> Affects Versions: 3.6, 4.0
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3807.patch, LUCENE-3807.patch, LUCENE-3807.patch
>
>
> Currently the suggester api and especially TermFreqIterator don't play that
> nice with BytesRef and other paradigms we use in lucene, further the java
> iterator pattern isn't that useful when it gets to work with TermsEnum,
> BytesRef etc. We should try to clean up this api step by step moving over to
> BytesRef including the Lookup class and its interface...
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
