Hi Mike,
This is great feedback on the new Collector API, Uwe. Thanks!
- Likewise.
It's awesome that you no longer have to warm your searchers... but be
careful when a large segment merge commits.
I know this, but in our case (e.g. creating a IN-SQL list, collecting
measurement parameters
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
It's awesome that you no longer have to warm your searchers... but be
careful when a large segment merge commits.
I know this, but in our case (e.g. creating a IN-SQL list, collecting
measurement parameters from the
Some status update:
George, did you mean LUCENE-1516 below? (LUCENE-1313 is a further
improvement to near real-time search that's still being iterated on).
In general I would say 2.9 seems to be in rather active development
still
;)
I too would love to hear about production/beta
This is great feedback on the new Collector API, Uwe. Thanks!
It's awesome that you no longer have to warm your searchers... but be
careful when a large segment merge commits.
Did you hit any snags/problems/etc. that we should fix before releasing 2.9?
Mike
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:54 AM,
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
LUCENE-1313 relies on LUCENE-1516 which is in trunk. If you have other
questions George, feel free to ask.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:04 AM, George Aroush geo...@aroush.net wrote:
Thanks Mike.
A quick follow up question. What's
George, did you mean LUCENE-1516 below? (LUCENE-1313 is a further
improvement to near real-time search that's still being iterated on).
In general I would say 2.9 seems to be in rather active development still
;)
I too would love to hear about production/beta use of 2.9. George
maybe
, or
even as beta?
-- George
_
From: Jason Rutherglen [mailto:jason.rutherg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:13 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
LUCENE-1313 relies on LUCENE-1516 which is in trunk. If you have
Hi George,
There's been a sudden burst of activity lately on 2.9 development...
I know there are some biggish remaining features we may want to get
into 2.9:
* The new field cache (LUCENE-831; still being iterated/mulled),
* Possible major rework of Field / Document index-time vs
your input.
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:36 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
Hi George,
There's been a sudden burst of activity
?
If anyone else knows, I welcome your input.
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:36 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
Hi George,
There's
Whoops - should read: It should still work *without* 1483 but would be
much slower in those cases (reloading the filter/fieldcache per reader
rather than per segment).
Mark Miller wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if it didnt depend on a couple other little
issues - Jason or Mike would probably
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
Thanks Mike.
A quick follow up question. What's the status of
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1313? Can this work be
applied
to Lucene 2.4.1 and still get it's benefit or are there other dependency /
issues
]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:36 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 status (to port to Lucene.Net)
Hi George,
There's been a sudden burst of activity lately on 2.9 development...
I know there are some biggish remaining features we may want
to get
13 matches
Mail list logo
