lucene^1.5 content:lucene^1.0))
((+(+content:linux +content:lucene)) +(site:contentsite1
site:contentsite2 site:contentsite3 site:contentsite4
site:contentsite5 site:contentsite6 site:contentsite7)))^0.01))
+location:australia)
+newsdate:[20061107 TO 20061208]
+region:au)
-jobsite:ba
+content:lucene)) +(site:contentsite1
site:contentsite2 site:contentsite3 site:contentsite4
site:contentsite5 site:contentsite6 site:contentsite7)))^0.01))
+location:australia)
+newsdate:[20061107 TO 20061208]
+region:au)
-jobsite:badsite1 -region:badregion1 -jobsite:badsite2
-jobsite:badsite3 -jobsi
Hi,
I have a question that is probably easy to answer for many of you. I'm
using some custom Filters with Lucene, mostly imlemented by using
TermEnum/TermDocs and checking some condition.
Is it necessary to check the deleted-status of documents that the filter
includes (and never actually include
I have tried the HitsCollector and the time has improved ~ 3/4 a second
on the searching. I still get really bad times when two or more people
ask for data at the same time. The problem doesn't seem to be in
writing the files, it's in getting data from the index when two or more
people ask for la
I think I've seen this problem when you use Lucene's built in delete
mechanism,
IndexReader.deleteDocument I believe. The problem was it was synchronizing
on a java BitSet, which totally killed performance when more than one
process
was using the same IndexReader. Better way to do deletes is to
: Is it necessary to check the deleted-status of documents that the filter
: includes (and never actually include deleted documents), or is this done
...
: I'm trying to implementent an inverted version of a filter, simply by
: flipping all the bits in the BitSet, after the filter has fini
I have a query that uses a filter... looking something like this:
BooleanQuery filterQuery = new BooleanQuery();
// add criteria
QueryFilter qf = new QueryFilter(filterQuery);
CachingWrapperFilter cwf = new CachingWrapperFilter(qf);
I'm stumped. It seems like it might be time to haul a profiler out. I'm
particularly surprised because I put together a test system that fired a
bunch of threads at a searcher and saw nothing like you're seeing even up to
the 30 simultaneous requests running.
Do you know whether you're I/O bound,
I have a collection of documents for which I've always returned the
results sorted on the date/time of the document (using a sort object in
the search method on my Searcher). It works great.
Suddenly, I have a requirement to return the documents in relevancy
order. So, that's easy (I thought)
I've certainly seen references to writing custom scorers, so it's possible.
you might find valuable hints by searching the mail archive. I'll leave it
to the more expert folks to suggest which is your best option.
Although (and I'm talking beyond my competence here), it *may* work for you
to asse
: > on the searching. I still get really bad times when two or more people
: > ask for data at the same time. The problem doesn't seem to be in
: > writing the files, it's in getting data from the index when two or more
: > people ask for large recordsets back (I can take all the I/O statements
11 matches
Mail list logo
