What version of Lucene.Net did you use to create the index? Was it created with an earlier version of Lucene.Net and subsequently newer version of Lucene.Net is using? Is the index small enough that you can share it with us for debugging? If not, can you re-index the data (totally new index) and try again?
-- George > -----Original Message----- > From: Floyd Wu [mailto:floyd...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:18 PM > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene Scalability Options > > Well the situatio is Luke 0.9.1 will show me a message "read > pass EOF" when I opened index files made by Lucene.Net 2.3.1. > But Luke 0.8 can smoothly do that for me. > > > > > 2009/1/13 Granroth, Neal V. <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> > > > > > Floyd, you will need to provide more details about the specific > > problems you are encountering. > > > > I made a quick check, and have no difficulty opening and > inspecting an > > index I created a few minutes ago with Lucene.NET v2.3.1 > using Luke v0.9.1. > > > > -- Neal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Floyd Wu [mailto:floyd...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 8:18 PM > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > Hi all, > > It seems new version of Luke is not compitable with Lucene.net and > > I've email to the creator of Luke. Below is feedback from him > > > > "Yes, there have been many changes, > > but Lucene 2.4 can still open indexes built with earlier > versions of > > Lucene/Java. > > This is the second report I've got about the possible > incompatibility > > with Lucene.Net - I suggest to raise up this issue on the Lucene > > mailing list ( java-...@lucene.apache.org), and provide > more details, > > eg. Lucene.Net revision, stack trace, a small sample index > if you can." > > > > My original report as below > > "The situation is Luke-0.9 can not open the index files > which built by > > Lucene.Net-2.3.1. > > I tried to use older version of Luke and confirm Luke-0.8 and > > Luke-0.8.1 can open and read index files fine. > > I wonder if there is any change between java Lucene 2.3 and 2.4. > > Please help on this." > > > > Floyd > > > > > > > > 2009/1/9 George Aroush <geo...@aroush.net> > > > > > Hi Nitin, > > > > > > Any optimization that Luke can do on an index is also doable by > > > making > > API > > > calls from Lucene.Net. If not, then there is either a bug in > > > Lucene.Net > > or > > > in your use of the API. Can you share with us your API calls as > > > well as the Lucene.Net version you are using? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > -- George > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Nitin Shiralkar [mailto:nit...@coreobjects.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 6:27 AM > > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > > > Thanks Hugh. Yes, I tried using Luke for index optimization. > > > > Surprisingly, it has brought down the index size to ~20 GB with > > > > only one CFS and segment files left behind. I used compound > > > > optimization option. But I use the similar "SetUseCompoundFile" > > > > property on "IndexModifier" object in my Lucene.NET > code, but it > > > > has no effect on size or files after optimization. Any > > > > suggestions?? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hugh Spiller [mailto:hugh.spil...@renishaw.com] > > > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:35 PM > > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > > > Hi Nitin, > > > > > > > > I've found the easiest way to get rid of redundant files in an > > > > index is to use Luke. As soon as you use it to open the > index, it > > > > tidies up all the cruft. > > > > > > > > It's at http://www.getopt.org/luke/ . > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > Hugh Spiller > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Nitin Shiralkar [mailto:nit...@coreobjects.com] > > > > Sent: 09 January 2009 08:48 > > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > > > -- snip -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Any inputs on junk/redundant files in above list? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > This email and any attachments are confidential and are for the > > > > use of the addressee only. If you are not the > addressee, you must > > > > not use or disclose the contents to any other person. Please > > > > immediately notify the sender and delete the email. > Statements and > > > > opinions expressed here may not represent those of the company. > > > > Email correspondence is monitored by the company. This > information > > > > may be subject to Export Control Regulation. You are obliged to > > > > comply with such Regulations > > > > > > > > The parent company of the Renishaw Group is Renishaw plc, > > > > registered in England no. 1106260. Registered Office: > New Mills, > > > > Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8JR, United > Kingdom. Tel > > > > +44 (0) 1453 524524 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > >
