Re: FieldSelector with Lucene 2.3.2

2011-03-17 Thread Chris Bamford
Thanks David, I realised my mistake after I sent the original mail. Kind regards - Chris -Original Message- From: David Causse To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:22 Subject: Re: FieldSelector with Lucene 2.3.2 On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 03:17:41PM +

Re: FieldSelector with Lucene 2.3.2

2011-03-17 Thread David Causse
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 03:17:41PM +, Chris Bamford wrote: > Hi > > I am trying to speed up access to the data in my results Documents > and was wondering if FieldSelector might be the way forward? > After my search, I end up with an ArrayList of Documents, from each > of which I need to extra

Re: FieldSelector

2009-02-16 Thread Erick Erickson
Depending upon the structure of your index, FieldSelector can make a dramatic difference in your query speed. I wrote up some data peculiar to my setup, I think if you search FieldSelector on the Wiki you can find it. Best Erick On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:00 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > what kind of fie

Re: FieldSelector

2009-02-16 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Feb 16, 2009, at 7:00 AM, wrote: Hi, what kind of fields loads IndexSearcher.Document doc(int i)? Only those with Field.Store.YES? Yes, Lucene can only load those fields that are stored. I'm asking because I do not need to load the tokens - should I use a FieldSelector or are thes

Re: FieldSelector

2007-12-05 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Timo Nentwig wrote: On Wednesday 05 December 2007 12:20:51 Grant Ingersoll wrote: Then, when you go to access those 4 fields, which you most certainly will at some point soon, otherwise why did you get the document to Nope, I won't :) I probably should have sai

Re: FieldSelector

2007-12-05 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 12:20:51 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Then, when you go to access those 4 fields, which you most certainly > will at some point soon, otherwise why did you get the document to Nope, I won't :) In fact my Document contain fields I only need for searching and sorting. But

Re: FieldSelector

2007-12-05 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:40 AM, Timo Nentwig wrote: On Friday 30 November 2007 19:28:12 Grant Ingersoll wrote: I guess the question becomes what is the nature of your fields? Do you have some really large fields that you want to avoid loading b/c they are not shown initially? That is the main us

Re: FieldSelector

2007-12-04 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Friday 30 November 2007 19:28:12 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > I guess the question becomes what is the nature of your fields? Do > you have some really large fields that you want to avoid loading b/c > they are not shown initially? That is the main use case, I guess. I wonder why there's not Lazy

Re: FieldSelector

2007-11-30 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Nov 30, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Timo Nentwig wrote: On Friday 30 November 2007 12:59:13 Grant Ingersoll wrote: Hmmm, I think you should be able to rely on the fact that Fields are stored in order of indexing and then read back in that same order. Yeah, tought about that for a moment but this i

Re: FieldSelector

2007-11-30 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Friday 30 November 2007 12:59:13 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Hmmm, I think you should be able to rely on the fact that Fields are > stored in order of indexing and then read back in that same order. Yeah, tought about that for a moment but this is just way to fragile. > Otherwise, the reading twi

Re: FieldSelector

2007-11-30 Thread Grant Ingersoll
Hmmm, I think you should be able to rely on the fact that Fields are stored in order of indexing and then read back in that same order. Thus, index your documents making sure that the documentType is the first Field on the Document (and for performance reasons, the other fields you want to