Hi All,
I am dealing with a situation where a document could possibly have multiple
attachments to it, and they are all added to the index under a document-id
(not lucene doc-id). Now if one of the attachments fail to get indexed due
to failure of any subsystem like the text extraction module, I
Dino Korah wrote:
Hi All,
I am dealing with a situation where a document could possibly have
multiple
attachments to it, and they are all added to the index under a
document-id
(not lucene doc-id). Now if one of the attachments fail to get
indexed due
to failure of any subsystem like the
Or, if it's hard to reduce this to a compact test, can you post the
code you are using and describe where/how it finds a difference? I'd
like to get to the bottom of this.
Mike
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Can you reduce this down to a unit test?
Thanks,
Grant
On May 16, 2008, at 11:37 AM, D
How about an attribute (fullyIndexed=true/false) to keep track of whether the
indexing was successful?
We used a similar attribute for a similar problem, but stored it in the
accompanying database instead.
-h
- Original Message
From: Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-
In your scenario, it might work, but I wonder how you generate hits,
excluding the fullyindexed=false.
-Original Message-
From: N Hira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 May 2008 18:31
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Transaction semantics in Document addition
How about an at
You could probably add a query filter, but we use that attribute to find the
documents that need to be re-indexed...
-h
- Original Message
From: Dino Korah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 1:32:09 PM
Subject: RE: Transaction semantics in D
hi,
I have a ValueSourceQuery that makes use of a stored field. The field contains
roughly 27.27 million untokenized terms.
The average length of each term is 8 digits.
The first search always takes around 5 minutes, and it is due to the
createValue function in the FieldCacheImpl.
The search is e
Hey Alex,
I guess you haven't tried warming up the engine before putting it to use.
Though one of the simpler implementation, you could try warming up the
engine first by sending a few searches and then put it to use (put it into
the serving machine loop). You could also do a little bit of preproce
Hi,
thanks for the reply. Yes, after the first slow search, subsequent searches
have good performance.
I guess the issue is why exactally, is createValue taking so long, or should it
take so long (4 ~ 5 minutes ).
Given roughly 27million terms, each of roughly 8 characters long and few other
by
