On 10/9/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. Lazy fields hold
: on to a stream and an offset, and operate by seek()'ing to the right
...
Hmmm... yeah it sounds like it shouldn't matter. If i get soem time i'll
try to do a
: I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. Lazy fields hold
: on to a stream and an offset, and operate by seek()'ing to the right
...
Hmmm... yeah it sounds like it shouldn't matter. If i get soem time i'll
try to do a micro benchmark to compare loading a doc with one field
> 3) should we be concerned about letting people specify prefixes/suffixes
> of the fields they want to forcably load for dynamicFields instead of just
> a Set of names? .. or should we cross that bridge when we come to
> it? (I ask because we have no cache aware method that takes in a
> FieldSel
On 10/8/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for tackling this Mike ... I've been dreading the whole issue of
Lazy Loading but your patch gives me hope. I haven't had a chance to try
it out, but reading through it, it seems a lot more straight forward then
I'd feared.
A couple
Thanks for tackling this Mike ... I've been dreading the whole issue of
Lazy Loading but your patch gives me hope. I haven't had a chance to try
it out, but reading through it, it seems a lot more straight forward then
I'd feared.
A couple of concerns jump out at me though, starting with the big
