Thanks TX for your response. I would check that the Luke version matches the Lucene version - if > the two match, it shouldn't be possible to get issues like this. > That is, the precise versions of Lucene each is using.
Yes, I am using https://github.com/DmitryKey/luke/releases/tag/luke-7.1.0 It works ok with my new generated indexes, but it does not with the "migrated" ones. El lun, 7 nov 2022 a las 12:18, Trejkaz (<trej...@trypticon.org>) escribió: > The process itself sounds like it should work (it's basically a > reindex so it should be safer than trying to migrate directly.) > > I would check that the Luke version matches the Lucene version - if > the two match, it shouldn't be possible to get issues like this. > That is, the precise versions of Lucene each is using. > > TX > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 22:09, Pablo Vázquez Blázquez <pabl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > I am trying to create a tool to read docs from a lucene5 index and > > generate lucene9 documents from them (with docValues). That might work, > > right? I am shading both lucene5 and lucene9 to avoid package conflicts. > > > > I am doing the following steps: > > > > - create IndexReader with lucene5 package over a lucene5 index > > - create IndexWriter with lucene7 package > > - iterate over reader.numDocs() to process each Document (lucene5) > > - convert each Document (lucene5) to lucene7 Document > > - for each IndexableField (lucene5) from Document (lucene5) > convert > > it to create an IndexableField (lucene7) > > - create a SortedDocValuesField (lucene7) and add it to the > > Document (lucene7) > > - add the field to the Document (lucene7) > > - add each converted Document to the writer > > - close IndexReader and IndexWriter > > > > When I open the resulting migrated lucene7 index with Luke I got an > error: > > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexFormatTooNewException: Format version is not > > supported (resource > > > BufferedChecksumIndexInput(MMapIndexInput(path="tests_small_index-7.x-migrator\segments_1"))): > > 9 (needs to be between 6 and 7) > > > > When I use the tool "luceneupgrader > > <https://github.com/hakanai/luceneupgrader>", I got: > > java -jar luceneupgrader-0.5.2-SNAPSHOT.jar info > > tests_small_index-7.x-migrator > > Lucene index version: 7 > > > > What am I doing wrong or misleading? > > > > Thanks! > > > > El mié, 2 nov 2022 a las 21:13, Pablo Vázquez Blázquez (< > pabl...@gmail.com>) > > escribió: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Luckily we were already using lucenemigrator > > > > > > > > > What do you mean with "lucenemigrator"? Is it a public tool? > > > > > > I am trying to create a tool to read docs from a lucene5 index and > > > generate lucene9 documents from them (with docValues). That might work, > > > right? I am shading both lucene5 and lucene9 to avoid package > conflicts. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > El mar, 1 nov 2022 a las 0:35, Trejkaz (<trej...@trypticon.org>) > escribió: > > > > > >> Well... > > >> > > >> There's a way, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. > > >> > > >> You can write custom migration code against some version of Lucene > > >> which supports doc values, to create doc values fields. It's going to > > >> involve writing a FilterCodecReader which wraps your real index and > > >> then pretends to also have doc values, which you'll build in a custom > > >> class which works similarly to UninvertingReader. Then you pass those > > >> CodecReaders to IndexWriter.addIndexes to create a new index which > > >> really has those doc values. > > >> > > >> We did that ourselves when we had the same issue. The only painful > > >> thing about it is having to keep around older versions of lucene to do > > >> that migration. Forever. Luckily we were already using lucenemigrator, > > >> which has the older versions baked into it with package prefixes. So > > >> that library will get fatter and fatter over time but at least our own > > >> code only gets fatter at the rate migrations are added. > > >> > > >> The same approach works for any other kind of ad-hoc migration you > > >> might want to perform. e.g., you might want to create points. Or > > >> remove an index for a field. Or add an index for a field. > > >> > > >> TX > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 02:57, Pablo Vázquez Blázquez < > pabl...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > Thank you all for your responses. > > >> > > > >> > So, when updating to a newer (major) Lucene version that modifies > its > > >> > codecs, there is no way to ensure everything keeps working properly, > > >> unless > > >> > re-indexing, right? > > >> > > > >> > Apart from not having some original sources that were indexed > (which I > > >> will > > >> > try to solve by using the *IndexUpgrader *tool), I have another > > >> problem: I > > >> > was using the org.apache.lucene.uninverting.UninvertingReader to > perform > > >> > queries against the index, mainly using the grouping api. But > > >> currently, it > > >> > was removed (since Lucene 7.0). So, again, do I have any other > > >> alternative, > > >> > apart from re-indexing to use docValues? > > >> > > > >> > To give you more context, I am a developer of a tool that multiple > > >> > customers can use to index their data (currently, with Lucene > 5.5.5). We > > >> > are planning to upgrade to Lucene 9 (because of some vulnerabilities > > >> > affecting Lucene 5.5.5) and I think asking them to reindex will not > go > > >> down > > >> > well :( > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > El sáb, 29 oct 2022 a las 23:31, Matt Davis (< > kryptonics...@gmail.com>) > > >> > escribió: > > >> > > > >> > > Inside of Zulia search engine, the object being indexed is always > a > > >> > > JSON/BSON object and we store the BSON as a stored byte field in > the > > >> > > index. This allows easy internal reindexing when the searchable > > >> fields > > >> > > change but also allows us to update to the latest lucene version. > > >> > > Combined with using lucene-backward-codecs an older index than > the > > >> current > > >> > > major version can be opened and reindexed. If you have stored > all the > > >> > > fields (or a json/bson) in the index, it would be easy to reindex > in > > >> the > > >> > > new format. If you have not, maybe opening with > > >> lucene-backward-codecs > > >> > > will be enough for your use case. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Matt > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 2:30 PM Baris Kazar < > baris.ka...@oracle.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > It is always great practice to retain non-indexed > > >> > > > data since when Lucene changes version, > > >> > > > even minor version, I always reindex. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best regards > > >> > > > ________________________________ > > >> > > > From: Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2022 2:17 PM > > >> > > > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org <java-user@lucene.apache.org> > > >> > > > Subject: Re: Best strategy migrate indexes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Pablo, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The deafening silence is probably nobody wanting to give you > the bad > > >> > > news. > > >> > > > You are on a mission that may not be feasible, and even if you > can > > >> get it > > >> > > > to "work", the end result won't likely be equivalent to > indexing the > > >> > > > original data with Lucene 9.x. The indexing process is > fundamentally > > >> > > lossy > > >> > > > and information originally used to produce non-stored fields > will > > >> have > > >> > > been > > >> > > > thrown out. A simple example is things like stopwords or > anything > > >> > > analyzed > > >> > > > with subclasses of FilteringTokenFilter. If the stop word list > > >> changed, > > >> > > or > > >> > > > the details of one of these filters changed (bugfix?), you will > end > > >> up > > >> > > with > > >> > > > a different result than indexing with 9.x. This is just one > > >> > > > example, another would be stemming where the index likely only > > >> contains > > >> > > the > > >> > > > stem, not the whole word. Other folks who are more interested > in the > > >> > > > details of our codecs than I am can probably provide further > > >> examples on > > >> > > a > > >> > > > more fundamental level. Lucene is not a database, and the source > > >> > > documents > > >> > > > should always be retained in a form that can be reindexed. If > you > > >> have > > >> > > > inherited a system where source material has not been retained, > you > > >> have > > >> > > a > > >> > > > difficult project and may have some potentially painful > expectation > > >> > > setting > > >> > > > to perform. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> > > > Gus > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:01 AM Pablo Vázquez Blázquez < > > >> > > pabl...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I have some indices indexed with lucene 5.5.0. I have updated > my > > >> > > > > dependencies and code to Lucene 7 (but my final goal is to use > > >> Lucene > > >> > > 9) > > >> > > > > and when trying to work with them I am having the exception: > > >> > > > > org.apache.lucene.index.IndexFormatTooOldException: Format > > >> version is > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > supported (resource > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > BufferedChecksumIndexInput(MMapIndexInput(path=".......\tests\segments_b"))): > > >> > > > > this index is too old (version: 5.5.0). This version of Lucene > > >> only > > >> > > > > supports indexes created with release 6.0 and later. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I want to migrate from Lucene 5.x to Lucene 9.x. Which is the > best > > >> > > > > strategy? Is there any tool to migrate the indices? Is it > > >> mandatory to > > >> > > > > reindex? In this case, how can I deal with this when I do not > > >> have the > > >> > > > > sources of documents that generated my current indices (I > mean, I > > >> just > > >> > > > have > > >> > > > > the indices themselves)? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > >> > > > > Pablo Vázquez > > >> > > > > (pabl...@gmail.com) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.needhamsoftware.com__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PVR-c0gAs5FpIrnotHWeo3sEWScxV8oFJrVpGdItGZictcDbRvnp5aZSqCRhglMCYqQsewQOuio4iIYARA$ > > >> > > > (work) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.the111shift.com__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PVR-c0gAs5FpIrnotHWeo3sEWScxV8oFJrVpGdItGZictcDbRvnp5aZSqCRhglMCYqQsewQOuirxfFWpEQ$ > > >> > > > (play) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Pablo Vázquez > > >> > (pabl...@gmail.com) > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Pablo Vázquez > > > (pabl...@gmail.com) > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pablo Vázquez > > (pabl...@gmail.com) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Pablo Vázquez (pabl...@gmail.com)
