Clarification: Obviously, I should have said "June 11" when I talked of a newer
date.
From: Scott Smith [mailto:ssm...@mainstreamdata.com]
Sent: Tue 6/16/2009 5:41 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Getting results for a specific date
Mostly, our user
I thought of that. However, I verified that there are queries. The query code
also does what you suggest with MatchAllDocsQuery() if there were no queries,
but the test case doesn't need this since there are queries.
I'd really like to understand why the code doesn't work before I try the
Co
As of 2.9, org.apache.lucene.util.Constants.LUCENE_VERSION is a good
way to get this.
That constant is set by first looking at the implementation version,
and then making sure the version Lucene thinks it is (2.9 on trunk
now) is contained in the resulting string. It also takes care of a
null imp
I am seeing my Lucene application's search time grows pretty much linearly to
the number of Documents.
Is this how Lucene is supposed to work, or does it depend on the nature of
query?
I am not using FuzzyQuery that was the subject of the recent discussion by the
way.
-Kuro
-
It depends on lots of things, but the time to execute a search would not
typically grow linearly with the number of documents. But the time to
retrieve data from all the hits might, if the number of hits is growing in
line with the number of documents. Are you doing that by any chance, as
opposed
Are you measuring search time *only* or are you measuring total response
time
including assembling whatever you assemble? If you're measuring total
response
time, everything from network latency to what you're doing with each hit may
affect response time.
This is especially true if you're iteratin
Thank you, Ian and Erick,
This is a stand-alone search application that runs a query
and exits, as opposed to the typical web-based search program.
The query is consists of combination of SpanQuery, TermQuery,
BooleanClause, SpanNearQuery, and SpanTermQuery.
I get the top 50 hits at most and no
Hello all,
I have a situation where a field is indexed like this
(FAC_NAME(Field.Store.NO, Field.Index.NO_NORMS)) and keyword analyzer is
used on this field. Although, I'm aware that NO_NORMS doesn't use any
analyzer.
Now, the query +(FAC_NAME:fa*) is failing with 'Too many clause exception'
in
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, vanshi wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have a situation where a field is indexed like this
> (FAC_NAME(Field.Store.NO, Field.Index.NO_NORMS)) and keyword analyzer is
> used on this field. Although, I'm aware that NO_NORMS doesn't use any
> analyzer.
>
> Now, the query +
There is a similar discussion on this topic here:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/42824?search_string=Lucene%20search%20performance%3A%20linear%3F;#42824
or: *http://tinyurl.com/lpp3hf*
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Teruhiko Kurosaka wrote:
> Thank you, Ian and Erick,
I've written a test program that uses the simplest form of search,
TermQuery and measure the time it takes to search a term in a field
on indices of various sizes.
The result is a very linear growth of search time vs the index size in
terms of # of Documents, not # of unique terms in that field.
I am having a million of documents per day to index. DateTime field is with
minute resolution.
How much memory i save by splitting this to multiple fields (one field
containintg MMDD, one field with HH and one with MM).
Could anyone provide me some calculation of calculating memory for so
12 matches
Mail list logo
