[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700583#action_12700583
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-831:
------------------------------------
bq. >>I was also thinking that some of these issues could force back up to
multi-reader support though.
bq.>Hopefully not...
Yes, I don't know enough yet to know for sure. My thought was things like norms
and deletes that are available from multireader now will have to either still
be, or straddle multi/segment for a while. I guess that doesnt become much of
an issue if we go with the same method of just don't load from both single and
multi or you will double your reqs? It just gets ugly trying to prevent
multireader use with valuesource, but then have to support it due to all the
back compat reqs.
bq. We can (and I think should) do FieldType without forcing a fixed schema.
Fair enough, fair enough. I wasn't really taking this completely from this
discussion, but from a variety of ideas about fields that have been spilling
out on the list. Of course we can still get a lot better (easier) without
hitting fixed.
bq. For tags we'd presumably want multi-valued fields handled in ValueSource,
plus updatability, plus NRT.
Well I'm glad its a small order. Yonik did do some multi value faceting work
that I never really looked at. I'll go dig it up.
It may just be best if this sits for a while and we see what happens with a
couple other issues floating around it. I said I had sweat to pump into this,
not intelligence ;) If we hit all this stuff (and yes, your not saying we need
to or should, but) this ends up touching most things in IndexReader, than
possibly writing and merging and what not in IndexWriter (pluggable norms etc
still need to be written, merged, loaded, etc), and ...
> Complete overhaul of FieldCache API/Implementation
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-831
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Hoss Man
> Assignee: Mark Miller
> Fix For: 3.0
>
> Attachments: ExtendedDocument.java, fieldcache-overhaul.032208.diff,
> fieldcache-overhaul.diff, fieldcache-overhaul.diff,
> LUCENE-831-trieimpl.patch, LUCENE-831.03.28.2008.diff,
> LUCENE-831.03.30.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.03.31.2008.diff, LUCENE-831.patch,
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch,
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch,
> LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch, LUCENE-831.patch,
> LUCENE-831.patch
>
>
> Motivation:
> 1) Complete overhaul the API/implementation of "FieldCache" type things...
> a) eliminate global static map keyed on IndexReader (thus
> eliminating synch block between completley independent IndexReaders)
> b) allow more customization of cache management (ie: use
> expiration/replacement strategies, disk backed caches, etc)
> c) allow people to define custom cache data logic (ie: custom
> parsers, complex datatypes, etc... anything tied to a reader)
> d) allow people to inspect what's in a cache (list of CacheKeys) for
> an IndexReader so a new IndexReader can be likewise warmed.
> e) Lend support for smarter cache management if/when
> IndexReader.reopen is added (merging of cached data from subReaders).
> 2) Provide backwards compatibility to support existing FieldCache API with
> the new implementation, so there is no redundent caching as client code
> migrades to new API.
--
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
