[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13445852#comment-13445852
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3312:
---------------------------------------
bq. What if they were returned? Because you're absolutely right, it seems odd
for DocValues Fields to be StorableFields and then not accessible like all
other StorableFields. So what if we changed how IR.document worked so you could
pull DocValues Fields too. Is that something users might want?
This could be a large overhead if e.g. the loading of the whole column would be
triggered automatically (depends on configuration). Also,
IndexReader.document() is in the basic IndexReader class (because stored fields
can always be returned, also for composite readers). DocValues is AtomicReader
only... This could of course be managed by BaseCompositeReader to use the
subindex function to get the correct document, but it is somehow not the thing
docvalues are made for. They are there for using them while scoring, filtering,
functions...
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Nikola Tankovic
> Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12
> Fix For: Field Type branch
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3312-DocumentIterators-uwe.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-05.patch, lucene-3312-patch-06.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-07.patch, lucene-3312-patch-08.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-09.patch, lucene-3312-patch-10.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-11.patch, lucene-3312-patch-12a.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-12.patch, lucene-3312-patch-13.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-14.patch, LUCENE-3312-reintegration.patch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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
