[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12508993
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-272:
-----------------------------------
> The one big difference to Yoniks suggestion above is that it returns a
> Collection<Object> for getFieldValues() even if it is a single valued field
That's a good change as it leads to simpler client code.
I think that getFieldValue() should perhaps return the raw entry (an Object or
a Collection<Object>) for those (like the indexer) who would want the most
efficient access.
> SolrDocument performance testing
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-272
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Test
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Attachments: SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch,
> SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch,
> SolrDocumentPerformanceTester.java, SolrDocumentPerformanceTester.java,
> SolrInputDoc.patch, SolrInputDoc.patch
>
>
> In 1.3, we added SolrInputDocument -- a temporary class to hold document
> information. There is concern that this may be less then ideal
> performance-wise.
> To settle some concerns (mine included) I want to compare a few SolrDocument
> implementations to make sure we are not doing something crazy.
> I implemented a LuceneInputDocument subclass of SolrInputDocument that stores
> its values directly in Lucene Document (rather then a Map<String,Collection>).
> This is a quick test comparing:
> 1. Building documents with SolrInputDocument
> 2. Building documents with LuceneInputDocument (same interface writing
> directly to Document)
> 3. using DocumentBuilder (solr 1.2, solr 1.1)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
