[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769116#action_12769116
]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1997:
---
I think I found the reason for the discrepancy: 32
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769119#action_12769119
]
John Wang commented on LUCENE-1997:
---
wrote a small test and verified that 64bit vm's str
I did.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 09:05, Jake Mannix wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>> Yes - I've seen a handful of non core devs report back that they
>> upgraded with no complaints on the difficulty. Its in the mailing list
>> archives. The only core dev I've se
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769127#action_12769127
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1997:
---
So it does not have something to do with Ja
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769127#action_12769127
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1997 at 10/23/09 8:00 AM:
---
Sheesh I go to bed and so much all of a sudden happens!!
Sorry Mark; I should've called out "PATCH IS ON 2.9 BRANCH" more
clearly ;)
There's no question in my mind that the new comparator API is more
complex than the old one, and I really don't like that. I had to
rewrite the section of LIA that
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch
LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch
Here
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch
LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch
Updat
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Committed similarity changes in revision: 829002
> Remove deprecated query components
> -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765093#action_12765093
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1973 at 10/23/09 11:27 AM:
--
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch
LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch
Here
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769186#action_12769186
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1257:
---
Committed:
LUCENE-1257_contrib_benchmark
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769190#action_12769190
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
I'm getting errors applying this, but t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1973-BoostingTermQuery.patch
remove BoostingTermQuery.
The xml-query-parse
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765093#action_12765093
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1973 at 10/23/09 12:22 PM:
--
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769194#action_12769194
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1973:
---
Committed removal of BoostingTermQuery in r
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769196#action_12769196
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. I'm getting errors applying t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769203#action_12769203
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
Yes, they are near the $Id tags. That'
Yup, I'm not against the testing or the thought - and it is clearly more
complicated - I'm not saying its not. But I haven't seen anyone thats
come and said they haven't grokked it yet or that they had a hard time
with it (though they have run into limitations in what they have tried
to do). John a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769213#action_12769213
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
They only appear with native patch. All hig
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769214#action_12769214
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
+1 on this patch.
> Add oal.util.Versi
>>I still think we should if performance is no
>>better with the new one.
Where is there any indication performance is not better with the new one?
The benchmarks are clearly against switching back. At best they could argue for
two API's - even then it depends - a loss of 10% on Java 1.5
with th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769218#action_12769218
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
I am happy to then use the merge operations
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769221#action_12769221
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
bq. but how does this fit together.
Thats what
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769221#action_12769221
]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1997 at 10/23/09 1:31 PM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769222#action_12769222
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
bq. As most servers are running 64 bit,
Aren'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769227#action_12769227
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1997:
---
bq. it creates Comparable objects that can
Mark Miller wrote:
> bq. removing that if from the Multi PQ patch makes sense
>
> I didn't have a problem with that either - or other code changes - but
> jeeze, mention what you are seeing with the switch. I'll tell you what I
> saw it - not that much - a bit of improvement, but take a look at the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2002:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-2002-29.patch
New patch, adding Version to StopAnalyzer as well.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769232#action_12769232
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. I am happy to then use the me
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769235#action_12769235
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
I know this problem of trunk. But the first
Agreed: so far I'm seeing serious performance loss with MultiPQ,
especially as topN gets larger, and for int sorting.
For small queue, String sort, it sometimes wins.
So if I were forced to decide now based on the current results, I
think we should keep the single PQ API.
But: I am right now opt
I'm going through and updating my Lucene Boot Camp training for 2.9.
In it, I have some code that shows the various ways you can do deletes.
In 2.4, the code worked fine, in 2.9 it now fails. Here's the code:
public void testDeletions() throws Exception {
log.info("testDel
Yes, please do move to the Back Compat section; I think it really does
belong there.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I'm going through and updating my Lucene Boot Camp training for 2.9. In it,
> I have some code that shows the various ways you can do deletes.
>
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kay Kay updated LUCENE-1257:
Attachment: LUCENE-1257_contrib_benchmark_2.patch
> Port to Java5
> -
>
> Key:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1997:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1997.patch
New patch attached:
* Made some basic code level op
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1997:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1997.patch
New patch, fixes silly bug in sortBench.py.
> Explore
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769287#action_12769287
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
Env:
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_1
Mark,
when removing may comment (as I now understand the whole
FieldDocSortedHitQueue), I found the following as a optimization of the
whole hq:
All FieldDoc values are Compareables (also the score or docid, if they
appear as SortField in a MultiSearcher or ParallelMultiSearcher). The code
of les
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769295#action_12769295
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
32 bit 1.5 JRE:
JAVA:
java vers
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769299#action_12769299
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
Actually to port to trunk I was g
This probably warrants a CHANGES entry?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, wrote:
> Author: markrmiller
> Date: Fri Oct 23 17:07:22 2009
> New Revision: 829128
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=829128&view=rev
> Log:
> LUCENE-2003: Highlighter does
Yeah - coming up.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> This probably warrants a CHANGES entry?
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, wrote:
>
>> Author: markrmiller
>> Date: Fri Oct 23 17:07:22 2009
>> New Revision: 829128
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/view
Nice! I like it. Even if its not much faster (havn't checked either), I
can't see it being much slower and its cleaner code.
I'd be happy to do some quick perf tests when I get a chance, but I'm +1
on it.
Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Mark,
>
> when removing may comment (as I now understand the whole
>
I've noticed recently when merging from 2.9.x -> trunk or vice/versa,
for some reason it picks up files that had zero source changes in the
revision I merged, but do show changes to their svn:mergeinfo.
EG for LUCENE-2002, I merged 2.9.x -> trunk, and now on my trunk
checkout I see this mods:
Pro
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769328#action_12769328
]
Jake Mannix commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
Mike, thanks for all the hard work on this - it
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769332#action_12769332
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
Mike's latest results are more ambiguous - let
It's okay in a sense.
See, svn's merge-tracking support was grafted onto it in a particulary
hideous way and is really hairy on the insides.
So while there's no sane explanation for that behaviour, it is expected.
See -
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchme
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769365#action_12769365
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_20"
Java(TM) 2 Runtim
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769368#action_12769368
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
I agree the new results are now m
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2002:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-2002.patch
Patch for trunk; I plan to commit soon...
> Add oal.u
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769389#action_12769389
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
Mark Miller on java-dev:
{quote}
Nice! I l
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2006:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-2006.patch
Patch.
> Optimization for FieldDocSortedHitQueue
>
Optimization for FieldDocSortedHitQueue
---
Key: LUCENE-2006
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Affects V
I opened LUCENE-2006.
Is there any MultiSearcher related task/alg in contrib/benchmark?
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769398#action_12769398
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
Is there any MultiSearcher related task/alg
No - was considering how one might be added - Mike's python script
control to JIRA output stuff is just so cool, I'd hate to test any other
way ;) The new colors feature makes it even better. Not sure how best to
fit it in though - need a way to specify multiple indices obviously.
Would love to ge
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769404#action_12769404
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
The reason why this code looked like this i
OK thanks for the pointer :) It's very strange indeed.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
> It's okay in a sense.
> See, svn's merge-tracking support was grafted onto it in a particulary
> hideous way and is really hairy on the insides.
> So while there's no sane expla
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769406#action_12769406
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
A mega patch, one thing:
The highlighter t
Ist very easy to explain:
The mergeinfo is inherited from top level directories downto each file. If
one of the files already contained a mergeinfo in its properties (e.g. the
TestBackwardsCompatibility), because it was merged separately (I
reverse-merged this test as a separate action during my i
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769412#action_12769412
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. So the QueryParser ctors shou
Ahhh, ok, that makes sense.
Mike
2009/10/23 Uwe Schindler :
> Ist very easy to explain:
>
> The mergeinfo is inherited from top level directories downto each file. If
> one of the files already contained a mergeinfo in its properties (e.g. the
> TestBackwardsCompatibility), because it was merged
Hi Mike:
Thank you! It would be really nice to get the optimizations you have
done.
-John
2009/10/23 Michael McCandless
> Agreed: so far I'm seeing serious performance loss with MultiPQ,
> especially as topN gets larger, and for int sorting.
>
> For small queue, String sort, it sometimes wi
They are included in my last patch on LUCENE-1997. It's somewhat
hacked up though :) We'd have to redo it "for real" if we go forward
with this...
Mike
2009/10/23 John Wang :
> Hi Mike:
> Thank you! It would be really nice to get the optimizations you have
> done.
> -John
>
> 2009/10/23 Mic
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769452#action_12769452
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2003:
Mark is this one done?
> Highlig
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-2002.
Resolution: Fixed
> Add oal.util.Version ctor to QueryParser
> ---
I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down
Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
Mike
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Rob
I'll just remove TestStressSort...
Mike
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Indeed! It's doing nothing now. Just creating Sort objects but not
> in fact doing any searching with them. Hmm.
>
> Unfortunately, the test very much relied on the deprecated
> "setUseLegacyS
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Miller resolved LUCENE-2003.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Lucene Fields: [New, Patch Available] (was: [New])
> Highlighter has p
I think I was the guy that removed everything from this testcase :-) I
should have removed it after removing the old serach API.
You can also remove it from BW branch, but I think a new tag is not needed
now, this can wait until the next big bw commit.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769456#action_12769456
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
Can you make a simple patch for t
OK, done!
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I think I was the guy that removed everything from this testcase :-) I
> should have removed it after removing the old serach API.
>
> You can also remove it from BW branch, but I think a new tag is not needed
> now, this can
OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :)
Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the
release process on Monday.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additio
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769466#action_12769466
]
Hasan Diwan commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Patch files are independent of the platform the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769467#action_12769467
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
i'm not able to read this patch file either...
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769468#action_12769468
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
But the attachment here is a bina
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769471#action_12769471
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Its not only a binary file, but it clearly says
I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is
explain() in Scorer (
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769477#action_12769477
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1942:
---
I do not understand the whole problem. We h
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
> be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
> QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
That sounds like a big job th
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we
> should
> > be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement
> in
> > QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
>
> That sounds l
On 10/23/09 3:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LU
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769483#action_12769483
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
bq. I do not understand the whole
> > Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if
> we
> > use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9,
> too ->
> > I would not prefer this).
See the issue for details. I do not want to add this method, as it would
break bw compatibility in 2.9 if
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769485#action_12769485
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Well if the title is self explanatory as said,
On 10/23/09 3:19 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if
we
use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9,
too ->
I would not prefer this).
See the issue for details. I do not w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769489#action_12769489
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
If we want to stay with the current patch,
> Well, we should then have added it to 2.9.0 already. Normally we don't
> introduce new APIs in bugfix releases.
>
> This could be a candidate for the backwards-compat break section: If you
> have compressed fields you need to change your code, otherwise drop-in
> will work.
2.9.1 already has s
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769490#action_12769490
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
I'm actually -1 for option 1). The whole im
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769494#action_12769494
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
And how about keeping the current lucene-19
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769497#action_12769497
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1960:
Can't we detect that we're dealin
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769499#action_12769499
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Right, because FieldsReader#rawDocs() does
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769503#action_12769503
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Good idea, from where take the version?
Or
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769507#action_12769507
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
{quote}
Can't we detect that we're dealing
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769510#action_12769510
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
But this is only one-time. As soon as it is
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
