If you read the payloads in sequence they're not arranged by their original position whereas when you use a stored field you get the terms in the correct order. If you need to sort the values it doesn't matter of course. On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008, Chris Hostetter wrote about "Re: Sorting consumes > hundreds of MBytes RAM": > > : And question #2: what am I going to do against it? Index sharding? > > > > The only suggestion i can offer is to take a look at LUCENE-769 ... it > > takes a completley differnet appraoch of using a FieldSelector to access > > the *stored* field and sort on it ... the memory usage of FieldCache is > > eliminatedand the expense of longer search times ... in cases where you > > expect queries to match on a very small subset of the total index, it > > could be worth using. > > Instead of using a stored field, I would recommend using *payloads*. > If you store the field's valye as payload on a custom term, you basically > get a posting-list of the field value, which can be (theoretically, at > least) > efficiently skipped on one hand - and read in sequence on the other hand. > > -- > Nadav Har'El | Friday, Apr 25 2008, 20 Nisan > 5768 > IBM Haifa Research Lab > |----------------------------------------- > |Business jargon is the art of saying > http://nadav.harel.org.il |nothing while appearing to say a lot. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
