Could I ask how fast the search goes against this index, both for
simple words and more advanced phrase and boolean searches?
And is there something smart you have done to make this go fast, both on
the infrastructure or the system it selves?
Best regards,
Gard Arneson Haugen
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: +47 93 05 01 91
Fax : +47 21 95 51 99
Magenta News AS - Møllergata 8, 0179 Oslo
Will Allen wrote:
I have an application that I run monthly that indexes 40 million documents into
6 indexes, then uses a multisearcher. The advantage for me is that I can have
multiple writers indexing 1/6 of that total data reducing the time it takes to
index by about 5X.
-Original Message-
From: Luke Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:39 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Acedemic Question About Indexing
Don't worry, regardless of what I learn in this forum I am telling my
company to get me a copy of that bad boy when it comes out (which as far as
I am concerned can't be soon enough). I will pay for grama's myself.
I think I have reviewed the code you are referring to and have something
similar working in my own indexer (using the uid). All is well.
My stupid question for the day is why would you ever want multiple indexes
running if you can build one smart indexer that does everything as
efficiently as possible? Does the answer to this question move me to multi
threaded indexing territory?
Thanks,
Luke
- Original Message -
From: Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lucene Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Acedemic Question About Indexing
Uh, I hate to market it, but it's in the book. But you don't have
to wait for it, as there already is a Lucene demo that does what you
described. I am not sure if the demo always recreates the index or
whether it deletes and re-adds only the new and modified files, but if
it's the former, you would only need to modify the demo a little bit to
check the timestamps of File objects and compare them to those stored
in the index (if they are being stored - if not, you should add a field
to hold that data)
Otis
--- Luke Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on debugging an existing Lucene implementation.
Before I started, I built a demo to understand Lucene. In my demo I
indexed
the entire content hierarhcy all at once, and than optimize this
index and
used it for queries. It was time consuming but very simply.
The code I am currently trying to fix indexes the content hierarchy
by
folder creating a seperate index for each one. Thus it ends up with a
bunch
of indexes. I still don't understand how this works (I am assuming
they get
merged someone that I have tracked down yet) but I have noticed it
doesn't
always index the right folder. This results in the users reporting
inconsistant behavior in searching after they make a change to a
document.
To keep things simiple I would like to remove all the logic that
figures out
which folder to index and just do them all (usually less than 1000
files) so
I end up with one index.
Would indexing time be the only area I would be losing out in, or is
there
something more to the approach of creating multiple indexes and
merging
them.
What is a good approach I can take to indexing a content hierarchy
composed
primarily of pdf, xsl, doc and xml where any of these documents can
be
changed several times a day?
Thanks,
Luke
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
