--- Robert Engels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick
with version 1.9 (or
2.0 in this case).
If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior
versions.
--- Simon Willnauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Using the client thread as the indexing thread might
just cause some
performance drawback but that's considerable for
Actually, I would not even assume that: handing tasks
over between threads causes context switch, and more
cache misses. In
--- ABDOU Samir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Are there any ideas on how to compute the document
frequency and collection frequency of phrases?
Tokenize your input as phrases (instead of words), and
you'll get this the same way you normally get stats
for single-word tokens (Terms)? I did
--- Marvin Humphrey (JIRA) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
It also slows Lucene down -- indexing takes around a
20% speed hit. It would be possible to submit a
patch which had a smaller impact on performance, but
this one is already over 700 lines long, and it's
goal is to achieve standard
--- Maxim Patramanskij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently, buffer sizes for BufferedIndexInput and
BufferedIndexOutput are equals and have constant
size of 1024 bytes.
When using a database for index persistence, it
slowdowns performance much
because of relatively small buffer size. With
--- jian chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering if interning Strings will be really
that critical for
performance. The biggest bottle neck is still disk.
So, maybe we can use
String.equals(...) instead of ==.
I would bet big bucks for it saving significant amount
of time, even with
--- jian chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plus, as open source and open standard advocates, we
don't want to be like
Micros$ft, who claims to use industrial standard
XML as the next
generation word file format. However, it is very
hard to write your own Word
reader, because their word file
--- Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/26/06, Charlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
writeByte((byte)((i 0x7f) | 0x80));
writeByte((byte)(i | 0x80));
Yes, these two lines are equivalent.
It's fairly likely that the JVM already does this
optimization for you though...
at least
--- dan (JIRA) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while ( myopicEngineerStillDoesntGetIt)
{
case(1)
{
A small business running MySQL has a travelling
case(2)
{
Same scenario. How does team Lucene respond? If you
Dan, do us all a favor and please figure out the
difference between a
The times for KinoSearch and Lucene are 5-run
...
is due to cache reassignment.) Therefore, the same
command was
issued on the command line 6 times, separated by
semicolons. The
first iter was discarded, and the rest were
averaged.
...
The maximum memory consumption was measured
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-520?page=comments#action_12370726 ]
Tatu Saloranta commented on LUCENE-520:
---
Quick note regarding exceptions: an easy way to remove most of runtime
exception overhead is to just construct a shared
--- Nadav Har'El [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Armbrust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
on 17/02/2006 08:50:53
PM:
...
So I'm not sure the solution is to change the
semantics of the existing
constructor, but I think Lucene definitely need a
new constructor or
convenience
function that will do the
I am building a simple classifier system, using Lucene
essentially to efficiently+incrementally calculate
term frequencies.
(due to input variations, I am currently creating a
separate index for each attribute, although I guess I
could (should?) just use different field for each
attribute)
Now,
13 matches
Mail list logo
