[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13288164#comment-13288164
 ] 

Jack Krupansky commented on LUCENE-4101:
----------------------------------------

Superficially, the new concept of a field  that is stored and indexed being two 
fields - both with the same name - sounds confusing, but it all depends on how 
this will be presented to users. What "model" of the relationship between 
"index", "field", and "document" are users expected to understand with respect 
to how fields are "stored" vs. "indexed"? Show me the model, and then I could 
judge whether it is truly confusing.

Users generally need to be concerned about storage capacity and performance, so 
a model that clarifies (and separates) the impact that a stored field has on 
index vs. query result performance would be helpful.

Finally, maybe down the road it would be advantageous to have a stronger 
separation of indexed and stored fields, even to the point of using separate 
JVMs or even machines (e.g., one to identiy results and one or more separate 
JVMs/machines to retrieve stored fields for query response) so that index 
lookup throughput can be faster and index size can be larger without reducing 
the ability to have large numbers of large stored fields. I only mention this 
in the context of how it might make sense to migrate users away from the 
concept that the "indexed" and "stored" aspects (maybe that's a better word 
than just "field") are forever tightly rather than loosely linked.

                
> Remove XXXField.TYPE_STORED
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4101
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4101
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 4.0, 5.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4101.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-3312.
> For 4.0 I think we should simplify the sugar field APIs by requiring
> that you add a StoredField if you want to store the field.  Expert users
> can still make a custom FieldType that both stores and indexes...

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

Reply via email to