Kumar,
This seems to be more of a non-lucene problem.
Anyhow, have a look at "ha-proxy"; this is closer to what you require.
We can discuss more on this off the lucene list, if required.
Regards,
kapilChhabra
-Original Message-
From: kumarlimbu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday
Hi Kapil,
Thanks for your response.
We are looking at replicating complete lucene index on both servers. The
main reason for this is the ease of scaling compared to say splitting the
index between the 2 servers. Since we will have separate indexes we won't be
using MultiSearcher/ParallelMultiSea
what type of documents are indexing
regards
gaurav
On 11/11/07, Barry Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Optimizing my index of 1.5 million documents takes days and days.
>
> I have a collection of 10 million documents that I am trying to index
> with Lucene. I've divided the colle
On Nov 12, 2007 1:15 PM, J.J. Larrea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2. Since the full document and its longer bibliographic subfields are
> being indexed but not stored, my guess is that the large size of the index
> segments is due to the inverted index rather than the stored data fields.
> But
Hi,
I have a question regarding the way I got around the 'TooManyClauses'
exception when using wild card queries
(http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#head-06fafb5d19e786a50fb3dfb8821a6af9f37aa831).
I am using Lucene in conjunction with Hibernate Search
(http://www.hibernate.org/
Hi,
I need to index tons of meta-data fields along with every document
(around 80 fields, mostly strings of 32 characters, some integers, bools
and dates too, a couple of strings are longer like 64 chars or 120).
Also it would be nice if there was a way to represent nested fields, and
query for t
Sure, that'd work. It would also work to just continue to use
f.getPath() whenever you need it.
FWIW
Erick
On Nov 12, 2007 1:43 PM, KR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Erick Erickson wrote:
> >
> > Sure, just define it in the same scope as you want to refer to it.
> > Of course, that tells you
Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Sure, just define it in the same scope as you want to refer to it.
> Of course, that tells you nothing ...
>
> Java variables go out of scope when the last '}' *at the same level*
> is passed. For intance:
>
> {
>string s1;
>{
> string s2;
>} // s2 i
To paraphrase "Why do you want to know"? These kinds of questions
are so lacking in context that meaningful help is hard to offer. What
problem
are you trying to solve? Why do you want to compare indexes?
Erick
On Nov 9, 2007 12:14 PM, Lucene User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted tw
Sure, just define it in the same scope as you want to refer to it.
Of course, that tells you nothing ...
Java variables go out of scope when the last '}' *at the same level*
is passed. For intance:
{
string s1;
{
string s2;
} // s2 is out of scope after this line.
// s1 is still
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-831
This patch should be a good start for you. Not sure how stale it is at
this point though.
Britske wrote:
First my question:
Is there an (experimental / patch-version) lucene-fieldcache available which
uses some kind of eviction-strategy (LRU
>>Is there a simple way to make the synonym return the
word it points to?
Give the highlighter the same analyzer you used to create the index, not the
one you use to parse the query. This should ensure the set of words to be
highlighted includes all synonyms.
Cheers
Mark
- Original Messag
First my question:
Is there an (experimental / patch-version) lucene-fieldcache available which
uses some kind of eviction-strategy (LRU or whatever) so that OOM's would
never happen in my case, but instead some sorts would simply get evicted?
Now the background for those who are interested:
You could have a look at this thread.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/29354
regards.
Barry Forrest schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Optimizing my index of 1.5 million documents takes days and days.
>
> I have a collection of 10 million documents that I am trying to index
> with Lucene.
Hi there,
Currently I am trying to get synonyms to work. I have gotten as far as
injecting them into the index as Token.type SYNONYM. Lucene then finds
the original word and synonym and points to the same document. So far so
good.
However, I am stuck at highlighting the result. I have highli
> I am using the 2.3-dev version only because LUCENE-843 suggested
> that this might be a path to faster indexing. I started out using
> 2.2 and can easily go back. I am using default MergePolicy and
> MergeScheduler.
Did you note any indexing or optimize speed differences between 2.2 &
2.3-dev?
Ah! There are so many ways to do this as there are so many questions
unanswered in your mail.
What kind of load balancer are you going to install?
Will you be replicating the complete lucene index on both the servers?
Do you plan to use the MultiSearcher/ParellelMultiSearcher?
Do these servers sha
Hi Everyone,
We are planning on scaling our current web server by adding a machine with
similar specification. Both machine will be running lucene searches. What we
plan to do is add a load balancer in front of these servers. Our requirement
is to be able to share user info (user search history,
Yonik,
Thanks for this , I have checked and it is not at the end of the index, but
something funny is happening. It is a multireader each reader within it has
100,000 documents, but when it fails it is trying to access a document e.g.
123,456, in the segment that only has 100,000
Many Thank
19 matches
Mail list logo
