iverase commented on pull request #541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/541#issuecomment-1019443628
I tried to reproduce the issue in another machine again and I was able to
do. In addition I was able to run it as well successfully, the difference
between the two runs is that in
iverase commented on pull request #541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/541#issuecomment-1018492442
have you used the data in here: http://home.apache.org/~ivera/osmdata.wkt.gz?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log o
iverase commented on pull request #541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/541#issuecomment-1016597242
You need to try `IndexAndSearchShapes` in luceneutil. Not sure if it is
up-to-date but running it is similar to `IndexAndSearchOpenStreetMaps`.
--
This is an automated message f
iverase commented on pull request #541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/541#issuecomment-1014284136
This is looking much better. I tried some of my benchmarks and for points it
looks like:
```
|Approach||Index time (sec)||Force merge time (sec)||Index size (GB)||Reader
iverase commented on pull request #541:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/541#issuecomment-1012044387
I don't like that the optimisation only works for a specific number of
points, it feels very tricky. If we are doing something like that we should
remove the possibility of users
