Index sections #159
Index sections #159
Conversation
work in progress
section_inverted_index.go
Outdated
| io.init = true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if fieldID == ^uint16(0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you add some commentary around when fieldID is set to this - which should be math.MaxUint16.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, i'll be adding commentary to certain portions of the changes in the coming commits.
segment.go
Outdated
| numDocs uint64 | ||
| storedIndexOffset uint64 | ||
| fieldsIndexOffset uint64 | ||
| newFieldsIndexOffset uint64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose the reason you kept newFieldsIndexOffset along side fieldsIndexOffset is for backward compatibility? The new attribute could use a better name implying sections are in play.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it was more related to the fact that the newFieldsIndexOffset relates to information that has fieldsIndex info tagged alongside the section type informations.
| @@ -294,6 +312,69 @@ func (s *SegmentBase) loadFields() error { | |||
| return nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func (s *SegmentBase) loadFieldsNew() error { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here - name to indicate sections.
Or perhaps it'd be cleaner to declare a new struct which comes with new attributes and methods -
type SegmentBase struct {
// leave as is
}
type SegmentBaseV2 struct {
SegmentBase
sectionFieldsIndexOffset uint64
...
}
func (s *SegmentBaseV2) loadSectionFields() error {
}
type Segment struct {
SegmentBaseV2
...
}
If this can cause way too much of refactoring, you can ditch it. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh cool, thanks! I'll think more on these lines and get back to you on this.
|
duplicate of #165 |
work in progress