CachingWrapperFilter vs FieldCacheTermsFilter
Could someone provide some general guidelines on what scenario is best to use either the CachingWrapperFilter vs the FieldCacheTermsFilter? I understand there are certain restrictions, like the FieldCacheTermsFilter requires there to be a single-valued field for all documents in the index. But performance-wise, and aside from that criteria, are there use-case scenarios where it is better to use one over the other? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/CachingWrapperFilter-vs-FieldCacheTermsFilter-tp2200800p2200800.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: PrefixQuery vs wildcardquery
John Seer wrote: > > Hello, > > Is there any benefit of using one or other for "start with query"? > > Which one is faster? > > > Regards > It seems that you've answered your own question. If you want a "start with query", this is exactly what a PrefixQuery is for. WildcardQuery gives you more flexibility, but if you don't need it, then PrefixQuery should get the job done. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PrefixQuery-vs-wildcardquery-tp25649045p25649399.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
