Look in the old archive mails and you will find a few people have tried this
out. There is even some code around.
I have tried this, and to be honest it does not make much sense. The real
problem is performance it just takes too long to keep getting the index from
the database for performing the
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:22 PM
To: 'java-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Save to database...
Look in the old archive mails and you will find a few people have tried
this
out. There is even some code around.
I have tried this, and to be honest it does not make much
: Save to database...
Look in the old archive mails and you will find a few people have tried this
out. There is even some code around.
I have tried this, and to be honest it does not make much sense. The real
problem is performance it just takes too long to keep getting the index from
-
From: Robert Engels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:36 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Save to database...
There are impl in the contrib that do not need to retrieve the entire
index
from the db in order to query (there store blocks of files in the db
:43 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Save to database...
What I meant is instead of saving the indexes into files, could I save
them as tables in a database?
I would think there would be a FieldNames table, a TermDictionary table,
a TermFrequency table
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Aditya Liviandi wrote:
Is there anyone who could help me better understand the file structure
of the indexes though?
The Berkeley DB implementations in the 'db' contrib area write out blocks of
index data as fed by the Lucene Directory classes. It has no understanding of
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Robert Engels wrote:
4. transactional updates to the index are possible (although index writes
are supposedly transactional in std lucene, I have encountered some index
corruption with hard failures - I think it is because the files are not
synced when flushed/closed).
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Robert Engels wrote:
Yes, that is what I did in the custom persistence.
There are some not so trivial problems to solve though. Normally you cannot
seek with BLOBs, (a lot of JDBC/db impl will read the entire BLOB in all
cases) so efficiently reading the postings can be
'
mode would prevent this (at the cost of performance).
-Original Message-
From: Andi Vajda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:32 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Save to database...
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Robert Engels wrote:
4
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Robert Engels wrote:
Well, I think they are supposed to be - that is the reason the segments file
is written last. If the segments file is not updated the only problem
becomes orphaned files, but the index SHOULD still be consistent.
The Lucene index format is quite
10 matches
Mail list logo
