"Well, maybe we should put 1219 off to 3.0 and maybe we should get to
3..0 sooner rather than later, as in stop adding new features and focus
on bug fixes and deprecation. :-)"
honestly, "getting to 3.0 sooner" can take far too long for an itch I currently
have, gc() is kicking in like crazy due to these new byte[]. It is kind of
funny, the hard part(s) work perfectly, indexing stored fields, fetching them
after search from disk, but simple things like getting shared byte[] slice in
and out of the Lucene core costs far too much.
in my concrete case, I could:
a) continue to use my own "storage for documents" and store nly OFFSET/ID in
lucene...
b) simplify code and let lucene take care of it (simplifies my codebase a lot,
updates...) and throw some more HW in
c) convince You, Hoss, Mike.... 1219 (and maybe some more to help serching
case) is safe compromise and save money I would need for HW. Money is always
good as you can get some beer for it, less code as well, HW is bad :)
funny part aside, I think we are safe with 1219 as it is now. It helps unleash
lucene indexing for use cases with stored fields, so it is probably not only my
itch.
cheers, e.
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
