Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 5:47 AM, Michael McCandless
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 6:34 AM, Michael McCandless
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
writer.freezeDocIDs();
try {
get docIDs from somewhere & call writer.deleteByDocID
} finally
On Jan 24, 2008 5:47 AM, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 2008 6:34 AM, Michael McCandless
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>writer.freezeDocIDs();
> >>try {
> >> get docIDs from somewhere & call writer.deleteByDocID
> >>} fina
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 6:34 AM, Michael McCandless
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
writer.freezeDocIDs();
try {
get docIDs from somewhere & call writer.deleteByDocID
} finally {
writer.unfreezeDocIDs();
}
Interesting idea, but would require the IndexWriter to f
Hi Michael,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008, Michael Busch wrote about "Unique doc ids":
> the question of how to delete with IndexWriter using doc ids is
>...
> mapping from the dynamic doc ids to the new unique ones. We would also
> have to store a reverse mapping (UID -> ID) in
On Jan 23, 2008 6:34 AM, Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>writer.freezeDocIDs();
>try {
> get docIDs from somewhere & call writer.deleteByDocID
>} finally {
> writer.unfreezeDocIDs();
>}
Interesting idea, but would require the IndexWriter to flush the
buffer
On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
At first it might be optional,
+1
There are still applications that don't require a UID, or are static
for long enough periods of time that the Lucene internal id is
sufficient, so I would hate to impose this on those apps.
I thin
its presence. At first it might be optional, but I could see us
over time making more and more functionality that require UID to be
present, to the point where it's eventually not really optional...
Mike
Michael Busch wrote:
Paul Elschot wrote:
Michael,
How would IndexWriter.addIn
Paul Elschot wrote:
> Michael,
>
> How would IndexWriter.addIndexes() work with unique doc ids?
Hi Paul,
it would probably be a limitation of this design. The only way I can
think of right now to ensure that during an addIndexes() the UIDs don't
change is an API in IndexWriter
Terry Yang wrote:
> Hi,Michael,
> You idea is good! But i have a question and thanks for your help!
>
Hi Terry,
> Can u explain more about how you store a reverse UID-->ID? How u guarantee
> UID
> can be mapped to the correct dynamic ID. I mean if a docid =5 and then for
> some reason changed t
Michael,
How would IndexWriter.addIndexes() work with unique doc ids?
Regards,
Paul Elschot
Op Tuesday 22 January 2008 12:07:16 schreef Michael Busch:
> Hi Team,
>
> the question of how to delete with IndexWriter using doc ids is
> currently being discussed on java-user
> (http
Hi,Michael,
You idea is good! But i have a question and thanks for your help!
How you plan to store a unique ID for each doc? My understanding will be
adding a field(i.e uniqueid) for each doc and the field has one identical
token value.
We can add unique ID as payload for that token before indexi
Hi Team,
the question of how to delete with IndexWriter using doc ids is
currently being discussed on java-user
(http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/57228), so I
thought this is a good time to mention an idea that I recently had. I'm
planning to work on column-stored fields soon
12 matches
Mail list logo
