Paul Smith wrote:
I don't disagree with the premise that it involves substantial I/O and would increase the time taken to sort, and why this approach shouldn't be the default mechanism, but it's not too difficult to build a disk I/O subsystem that can allocate many spindles to service this and to allow the underlying OS to use it's buffer cache (yes this is sounding like a database server now isn't it).
My guess is that it'd be cheaper to just buy more RAM.
It would be better if the sorting mechanism in Lucene was a little more decoupled such that more customised designs could be utilitised for specific scenarios. Right now it's a one-for-all approach without substantial gutting of the code.
That's just what most folks have found useful to date. If you have a patch to decouple it, and others find it useful, then it should be seriously considered. I do have some concerns about whether the approach you suggest is in fact useful, but am happy to be proven wrong.
Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
