[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5236?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13933030#comment-13933030
]
Sebastiano Vigna commented on LUCENE-5236:
--
Sorry.
http://vigna.di.unim
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5236?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13930217#comment-13930217
]
Sebastiano Vigna commented on LUCENE-5236:
--
Sorry guys—just happened to rea
On 16 February 2013 14:35, Robert Muir wrote:
>
> TermsEnum termsEnum = reader.terms("body").iterator(null);
> boolean found = termsEnum.seekExact(new BytesRef("dogs"), false);
> // pass 0, to not ask for frequencies
> DocsEnum docsEnum = termsEnum.docs(reader.getLiveDocs(
On 16 February 2013 14:35, Robert Muir wrote:
2. index them, but specify you won't ask for them in the DocsEnum: and
> just use that to iterate documents.
>
> TermsEnum termsEnum = reader.terms("body").iterator(null);
> boolean found = termsEnum.seekExact(new BytesRef("dogs"), false);
On 16 February 2013 13:19, Robert Muir wrote:
I think you are missing my point: this interleaving is part of the
> whole design of this postings format. You can't just turn it off and
> force it to be always FOR: or you would need a new postings format
>
I never asked for that. It looks like you
On 16 February 2013 11:45, Robert Muir wrote:
> But forcing that wouldn't be testing the 4.1 index format, it would be
> something else (something not interesting).
>
Do you mind if I have my own share of knowledge and have my idea about
interesting benchmarks? :)
You didn't answer, but the und
I'd like to redo the benchmarks published on MG4J's home page with Lucene 4.1.
However, for this I'd need to know whether when using PForDelta coding the
counts (a.k.a. within-document frequencies) are stored interleaved with the
document pointers as in 3.6.2 (and, if not so, the cheapest way to