On Mon, Apr 14, 2008, Chris Hostetter wrote about "Re: Sorting consumes
hundreds of MBytes RAM":
> : And question #2: what am I going to do against it? Index sharding?
>
> The only suggestion i can offer is to take a look at LUCENE-769 ... it
> takes a completley differnet appraoch of using a FieldSelector to access
> the *stored* field and sort on it ... the memory usage of FieldCache is
> eliminatedand the expense of longer search times ... in cases where you
> expect queries to match on a very small subset of the total index, it
> could be worth using.
Instead of using a stored field, I would recommend using *payloads*.
If you store the field's valye as payload on a custom term, you basically
get a posting-list of the field value, which can be (theoretically, at least)
efficiently skipped on one hand - and read in sequence on the other hand.
--
Nadav Har'El | Friday, Apr 25 2008, 20 Nisan 5768
IBM Haifa Research Lab |-----------------------------------------
|Business jargon is the art of saying
http://nadav.harel.org.il |nothing while appearing to say a lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
