[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12668173#action_12668173
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1487:
-------------------------------------
So the advantage appears to be that you can cache the field values and so
calculate the filter faster for arbitrary terms, rather than having to
calculate and cache a bitset for each set of terms if you used TermsFilter -
Right? I think it should be easier to extract that info from the javadoc. And
more clear on exactly what the tradeoffs are, and when I should choose which.
* The FieldCacheTermsFilter is faster than building a TermsFilter each time.
While I did figure it out eventually (if I figured it out right), I'm thinking
it could be clearer. It could just be me though. I'm often a bit hazzy.
> FieldCacheTermsFilter
> ---------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1487
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Tim Sturge
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: FieldCacheTermsFilter.java, FieldCacheTermsFilter.java,
> LUCENE-1487.patch
>
>
> This is a companion to FieldCacheRangeFilter except it operates on a set of
> terms rather than a range. It works best when the set is comparatively large
> or the terms are comparatively common.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
