Re: how to define a pool for Searcher?

Hello Mark, there is something vague for me about the Lucene-indexAccessor you created and my problem. as I see your codes, you create IndexSearcher and put it into a Map and the only thing that separate them is the Similarity the have. so if say 1000 users with different Similarity connect to my

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

Chris Hostetter wrote: : equals to get q1.equals(q2). The core Lucene Query implementations do override : equals() to satisfy that test, but some of the contrib Query implementations do : not override equals, so you would never see the same Query twice and caching : BitSets for those Query ins

RE: Using ParallelReader over large immutable index and small updatable index

We use MultiSearcher for a similar scenario. This way you can keep the Searcher/Reader for the read-only index alive and refresh the small index Searcher whenever an update is made. If you have any cached filters, they are mapped to a Reader, so the cached filters for the big index will stay ali

Re: Indexing & search?

Hi, I've indexed 4 among 5 fields with Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.NO. And indexed the remaining one, say it's Field Name is *content*, with Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.Tokenized(It's value is collective value of other 4 fields and some more values).So my search always based on *content*f

Using ParallelReader over large immutable index and small updatable index

Is there a working solution out there that would let me use ParallelReader to search over a large, immutable index and a smaller, auxillary index that is updated frequently? Currently, from my understanding, the ParallelReader fails when one of the indexes is updated because the document ID's get

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

: equals to get q1.equals(q2). The core Lucene Query implementations do override : equals() to satisfy that test, but some of the contrib Query implementations do : not override equals, so you would never see the same Query twice and caching : BitSets for those Query instances would be a waste

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

Chris Hostetter wrote: : I was hoping that Query.equals() would be defined so that equality would be : based on the results that Query generates for a given reader. if query1.equals(query2) then the results of query1 on an indexreader should be identical to the results of query2 on the same inde

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

: I was hoping that Query.equals() would be defined so that equality would be : based on the results that Query generates for a given reader. if query1.equals(query2) then the results of query1 on an indexreader should be identical to the results of query2 on the same indexreader ... but there in

Re: alternative scoring algorithm for PhraseQuery

: My initial idea was to penalize a missing term position with its maximum error. : : Consider this: : Query: a b c d : Document A: b c d : : Term a is missing, score it as if it was at the worst position possible : : result: b c d a : pos. diffs: -1 -1 -1 +3 side comment: this doesn't sou

Re: Missing .tii File

Tim Patton wrote: I'm not sure how, but in moving an index over from 2.0 to 2.1 and changing my own code one of the .tii files got deleted. I still have the .tis file though, can I rebuild the missing file so I can open my index? Luke won't open it now and I just want to make sure everythin

Re: alternative scoring algorithm for PhraseQuery

Philipp, First off: I have no solutions, just some existing things that might be useful. On Tuesday 06 March 2007 01:08, Philipp Nanz wrote: > Hello folks, > ... > > Now my problem is with scoring the deletion cases. > > My initial idea was to penalize a missing term position with its maximum

Re: Search benchmark: 2.0 vs. 2.2-dev and heap sizing

This is interesting. Very large heaps can sometimes cause an expensive gc cycle ("Can heap be too big?" - http://www.javaperformancetuning.com/news/qotm045.shtml) and different memory allocation patterns between 2.0 and 2.2 could I think play in too, so it would be interesting to know the numbers

Search benchmark: 2.0 vs. 2.2-dev and heap sizing

Hi, I'm doing some Lucene search benchmarking (got to love massive query logs :)) and have 2 questions: 1) Has anyone compared Lucene 2.0 and 2.2-dev? My benchmarks found 2.2-dev (freshly baked) to be somewhat slower than 2.0, despite all those performance improvements (see CHANGES.txt)... Ha

Re: Indexing & search?

Hi senthil, senthil kumaran wrote: >I've indexed 4 among 5 fields with Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.NO. And > indexed the remaining one, say it's Field Name is *content*, with > Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.Tokenized(It's value is collective value of > other 4 fields and some more values).So

Re: Indexing & search?

You could analyze all the documents returned in your query to see if the "other fields" match. That is, could cycle through each document returned in, say, a hits object to see if f1 actually matches. This is almost certainly NOT what you want to do. Do you have any clue whether saving the space

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

On Mar 6, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Antony Bowesman wrote: Erik Hatcher wrote: Have a look at the CachingWrappingFilter: It caches filters by IndexReader instance. Doesn't that still have the same issu

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

Erik Hatcher wrote: Have a look at the CachingWrappingFilter: It caches filters by IndexReader instance. Doesn't that still have the same issue in terms of equality of conditions that created t

Re: Caching of BitSets from filters and Query.equals()

Have a look at the CachingWrappingFilter: It caches filters by IndexReader instance. Erik On Mar 6, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Antony Bowesman wrote: Not sure if I'm going about this the right way,

Re: Clearing locks

MC Moisei wrote: Is there a easy way to clear locks ? If I redeploy my war file and it happens that there is an indexing happening the lock is not cleared. I know I can tell JVM to run the finalizers before it exits but in this case the JVM is not exiting being a hot deploy. I'd do this by ha

Re: question about ScoreDocComparator

Well, I am using a Sort object ("Hits = Search.search(Query, Filter, Sort)" actually). In setting up the SortField array for that Sort object with a SortComparatorSource the issue comes up that I need to access the field value that is being used for sorting. Maybe that's just the way Lucene

Indexing & search?

Hi, I've indexed 4 among 5 fields with Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.NO. And indexed the remaining one, say it's Field Name is *content*, with Field.Store.YES & Field.Index.Tokenized(It's value is collective value of other 4 fields and some more values).So my search always based on *content*fie