solr does not support scheduling internally. Typically this is done
with an external program like:
http://www.quartz-scheduler.org/
I *think* the lucid search thingy has built in scheduling...
http://www.lucidimagination.com/products/lucidworks-search-platform
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, v
have you tried anything yet? solr? lucene?
with an OR query (the default) and standard analysis, it should just work
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> Dear Lucene Wizards,
>
> I am trying to do the following:
>
> Given: all items are book titles
> ...
> Little Book
> The
>
> As it stands now, we have the following concrete suggestions:
> 1. Log IRC -- from the looks of #lucene-dev, it appears that people have not
> migrated to the new logged version. To me, we really should just hook up the
> logger to #lucene and forget #lucene-dev ever existed. We should also
-1
for most of the same reasons everyone else is saying...
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> A single merged project works only when people are relatively on the same
> page,
> and when people feel it's mutually beneficial. Recent events make it
> clear that that
> is no
+1
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Background: Please see the December Lucene Board report, amongst others, for
> description and multiple mailing list threads (both here and on Lucene.NET)
> on the background of this vote. This move has been a long time in the
>
I think this sounds reasonable. Though I feel like you already sent
out the same notice before.
+1
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> The failure of any of the Lucene.NET committers to respond to status request
> for the Board Report this month doesn't exactly instill c
+1
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Per the discuss thread and the fact that Java is TM Oracle, I would like us
> to change "Lucene Java" to now be referred to as Lucene Core. The primary
> change is on the website where the "Java" tab will now be the "Core" tab and
>
http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM, marcus clemens
wrote:
>
> hi
>
> i am looking for a java lucene solr contrator to work in west sussex . the
> contract will last a year and its paying around £ 400 a day
>
> is this of interest to anyone . if so
+1
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Hi Luceneers, esp. PMC and Committers,
>
> I'm in the process of reviewing our branding per the Trademarks committee
> sending out requirements. So, expect to see some changes to the website and
> logos in the coming days as well
+1
dropped into my app, everything works and my tests pass...
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
>> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.3 and 3.0.2
>> (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and
I'm confused... what is the need for a new name? The only place where
there is a conflict is in the top level svn tree...
What about something general like:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev
or
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/project
ryan
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Stev
+1
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my pr
I'm still trying to grok the different points of view and apparent
(mis?) perceptions on what everyone is saying.
Going back to the beginning, the basic problem is that code is
duplicated between solr and lucene and fixing that is difficult with
the current structure.
There is no intention "merge
Wow... i've been offline for a while (new baby, yy!) and am now
skimming through the various lists...
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>
>
But is that really worth breaking all the existing references to
this? What
value is that for the users?
Just to clarify... your concern is two fold:
1. No term is perfect, Cartesian Tier is as good as any, lets stick
with it.
2. There are already references to cartesian tiers (like this
Do you think it is worth a name change? This is about to get
baked into
Solr and I would really prefer we choose names that the rest of
the world
seems to understand.
If it hasn't been baked in yet, then +1. I do agree that it's
important to
use names that are already present in the hi
I like "tile" best -- this has a direct mapping to common map caching
systems (google/bing/tms/WorldWind)
'Grid' is also good. In OpenLayers, 'grid' is the parent, and tile
based variations extend 'grid'.
"Tier" is interesting since it implies various levels, but i think
using a more com
17 matches
Mail list logo
