[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780471#action_12780471
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
bq. That is a cool tradeoff to be able to make.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> Ryan McKinley wrote:
>>>
>>> I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
>>> another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
>>> more back-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780452#action_12780452
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
That is a cool tradeoff to be able to make.
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780447#action_12780447
]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1606 at 11/20/09 5:31 AM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780447#action_12780447
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
bq. Does it make sense to implement here though
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780445#action_12780445
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
Okay - still not an issue I don't think - leadi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780441#action_12780441
]
Robert Muir edited comment on LUCENE-1606 at 11/20/09 5:16 AM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780441#action_12780441
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
bq. No problem in my mind - nothing the current
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780440#action_12780440
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
{code}
By the way Mark, in case you are interes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780440#action_12780440
]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1606 at 11/20/09 5:10 AM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780439#action_12780439
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
By the way Mark, in case you are interested, th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780433#action_12780433
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
bq. You should also post the info about that Fu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780432#action_12780432
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
bq. So Robert - what do you think about paring
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780430#action_12780430
]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1606 at 11/20/09 4:46 AM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780430#action_12780430
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1606:
-
So Robert - what do you think about paring down
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2037?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780388#action_12780388
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2037:
-
{quote}
It's a worthwhile question whether we r
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2037?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780368#action_12780368
]
Erick Erickson commented on LUCENE-2037:
Well, last night I changed LocalizedTestC
NP, sounds good.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:02 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: CustomScoreQuery Explanation
No worries - I think its a bit overkill for the change - I can just pop
it in r
No worries - I think its a bit overkill for the change - I can just pop
it in real quick.
Michael Garski wrote:
>
> Will do, along with a patch.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:47 PM
> *To:* java-de
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Ryan McKinley wrote:
I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't
have
another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
may be too amb
Will do, along with a patch.
Michael
From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:47 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: CustomScoreQuery Explanation
I don't see any reason why doExplain should be called twice. Can you cre
I don't see any reason why doExplain should be called twice. Can you create
an issue in jira please?
Simon
On Nov 20, 2009 1:30 AM, "Michael Garski" wrote:
Hi there –
I’m helping out with the Lucene.Net port of 2.9, and when rooting around in
CustomScoreQuery.CustomWeight, I noticed what ap
Hi there -
I'm helping out with the Lucene.Net port of 2.9, and when rooting around
in CustomScoreQuery.CustomWeight, I noticed what appears to be an
unnecessary call to doExplain in the explain method.
Current method in trunk:
public Explanation explain(IndexReader reader, int doc
Ryan McKinley wrote:
> I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
> another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
> more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
> may be too ambitious... In particular, the config spaghetti
I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
may be too ambitious... In particular, the config spaghetti needs
some attention.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780316#action_12780316
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2039:
-
It looks like the patch puts this in core? Any
Update PayloadSpanUtil
--
Key: LUCENE-2085
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2085
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Affects Versions: 2.9.1
Reporte
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Willnauer updated LUCENE-2039:
Attachment: LUCENE-2039_field_ext.patch
Updated the patch
- removed final modifier from E
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780258#action_12780258
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-2039:
-
bq. That means (for example) that Compl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780254#action_12780254
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2039:
-
Hi, in my opinion RegexParserExtension should n
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780193#action_12780193
]
David Kaelbling edited comment on LUCENE-2039 at 11/19/09 8:22 PM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780207#action_12780207
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1458:
I just committed a nice change on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-2084:
Priority: Minor (was: Major)
> remove Byte/CharBuffer wrapping for collation key generation
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2084?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-2084:
Attachment: LUCENE-2084.patch
> remove Byte/CharBuffer wrapping for collation key generation
> ---
remove Byte/CharBuffer wrapping for collation key generation
Key: LUCENE-2084
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2084
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2039?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780193#action_12780193
]
David Kaelbling commented on LUCENE-2039:
-
I apologize if I haven't read the comme
doh! well if you have it, that will be very handy for verification.
I'll create a separate issue for this shortly, maybe you can review the
patch
Thanks,
Robert
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Ack, actually two days ago I updated my Lucene trunk checkout a
Hi Robert,
Ack, actually two days ago I updated my Lucene trunk checkout and removed that
code, thinking its utility had evaporated!
But maybe IntelliJ will save my bacon in its local history cache. (Praise
IntelliJ!) I'll check tonight when I get home.
Steve
On 11/19/2009 at 10:16 AM, Robe
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1799?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780129#action_12780129
]
DM Smith commented on LUCENE-1799:
--
The sample code is probably what is on this page, her
Steven, do you still have a test setup to measure collation key generation
performance with Lucene?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 11/18/2009 at 7:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > Looking at the collation support, we could maybe improve
> > IndexableBinary
option 3 looks best . But do we plan to remove anything we have not
already marked as deprecated?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> We also had some (maybe helpful) opinions :-)
>
> -
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail
We also had some (maybe helpful) opinions :-)
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Hi Robert,
On 11/18/2009 at 7:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Looking at the collation support, we could maybe improve
> IndexableBinaryStringTools by using char[]/byte[] with offset and
> length. The existing ByteBuffer/CharBuffer methods could stay, they are
> consistent with Charset api and are not
Oops... of course I meant to post this in solr-dev.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779923#action_12779923
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2061:
I was baffled by why I see such s
It depends on how much work it is to remove the rest of the not per-segment
able stuff in Solr. If this can be done shortly, I would choose option 2 or
3 with no preference, as I do not know your backwards compatibility
requirements.
By the way, you wanted to send us your last Solr TokenStreams st
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2075?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2075:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-2075.patch
Updated patch, adds missing @Overrides, we added in 3.0 and also
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
> of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
> - have a Solr 2.0 with
48 matches
Mail list logo
