[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-875?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved SOLR-875.
----------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision 723994.
Had a slight change to the patch for the new UninvertedField faceting feature
that was recently added.
Thanks, Michael!
> Consolidate Solr's and Lucene's OpenBitSet classes
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-875
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-875
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Michael Busch
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: solr-875.patch
>
>
> Currently there are two versions of OpenBitSet and BitUtil in Solr and Lucene.
> We should only have one version of these classes in Lucene, that Solr should
> use.
> Tasks here:
> - Merge different versions into Lucene
> - Make Solr classes use/extend the classes in Lucene (we need to keep the
> Solr ones for backwards-compatibility)
> - Deprecate the classes in Solr
> - Change all references in Solr to use the classes in Lucene
> One difficulty here is Solr's BitSetIterator vs. Lucene's OpenBitSetIterator.
> Both have a next() method, however one returns an int (BitSetIterator), the
> other one returns a boolean and offers a doc() method to get the doc id. So I
> can't make BitSetIterator extend OpenBitSetIterator. There are not many
> places in Solr's core that use BitSetIterator, so we could simply change e.g.
> search/BitDocSet.java to use OpenBitSetIterator. This would however require
> to change the call to next() into two calls to next() and doc(). I wonder if
> this would be a noticeable performance hit?
> We could of course also leave both iterators and only merge OpenBitSet and
> BitUtil, but I'd prefer to only have one iterator, because they basically do
> exactly the same.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
