On 8/10/06, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have one more comment on the cache implementation. It feels to me somewhat not right that a static system wide object (FieldCache.DEFAULT) is managing the field caching for all the indexReaders in the JVM (possibly of different indexes), when in fact there is no dependency/relation/cooperation between the different indexReaders, cache wise. It seems cleaner and simpler to have FieldCacheImpl take care of a single IndexReader, and so have that cache "belong" to the indexReader. This would make the cache implementation simpler. Synchronization would only need to be on field values. This way we also get rid of the WeakHashMap (which, btw, I never got to fully trust).
Sorting was introduced to Lucene before my time, so I don't know the reasons behind it. Maybe it was seen as non-optimial or non-core and so was kept out of the IndexReader. I admit, it does feel like the level of abstraction that FieldCache is at is higher than that of the IndexReader (the lowest level). -Yonik http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
