[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5321?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13812082#comment-13812082
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-5321:
--------------------------------------------
+1, but maybe we can keep that test case if we just change it to an
assumeTrue(_TestUtil.fieldSupportsHugeBinaryValues)?
> Remove Facet42DocValuesFormat
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5321
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5321
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/facet
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Attachments: LUCENE-5321.patch
>
>
> The new DirectDocValuesFormat is nearly identical to Facet42DVF, except that
> it stores the addresses in direct int[] rather than PackedInts. On
> LUCENE-5296 we measured the performance of DirectDVF vs Facet42DVF and it
> improves perf for some queries and have negligible effect for others, as well
> as RAM consumption isn't much worse. We should remove Facet42DVF and use
> DirectDVF instead.
> I also want to rename Facet46Codec to FacetCodec. There's no need to refactor
> the class whenever the default codec changes (e.g. from 45 to 46) since it
> doesn't care about the actual Codec version underneath, it only overrides the
> DVF used for the facet fields. FacetCodec should take the DVF from the app
> (so e.g. the facet/ module doesn't depend on codecs/) and be exposed more as
> a utility Codec rather than a real, versioned, Codec.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
