On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess here is where I just say that unicode and java are optimized for > > utf-16 processing > > I agree, though leaving things as UTF8 works fine for low level stuff > (sorting, comparing equality, etc.)? > +1 > > > and so while I agree with byte[] being available in > > places like this for flex indexing, > > I'm already nervous about seeing code / optimizations that only work well > > with latin-1, and are very slow / buggy for anything else. > > Buggy we should clearly outright fix. > > Slower, maybe. But very slow, I hope not? > > What places specifically are you worried about? > places like AutomatonQuery, where I found myself wanting to consider the option of processing byte[], when I know this is very bad! > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
