and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai.
in the
use case.
Hope, I'm making sense here. Thanks in advance.
It's only for tie-breaks where Lucene falls back to its docID to break the
tie.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Team
results in perfect order of incremental IDs. In case non adjacent
segments are merged, then there should be a change in order of the IDs
right? Or am I missing something?
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India.
something basic here? Glad if you can help. Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India
one hour once or when 1000 docs indexed) is
the only way? Or am I missing something very basic? Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India.
Hello,
We're using lucene 4.1. We have the word block-major-5
indexed. Using the classic analyzer, we get the following tokens : block
and major-5.
However,
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India.
*, *the document doesn't match.
However searching for *block** works perfect. Is this a bug, or am I doing
something wrong?
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India.
.
ClassicAnalyzer/Tokenizer is general purpose and will never meet
everyone's requirement all the time. You could try a different
analyzer, or build your own. That's what the javadoc recommends.
--
Ian.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote
, doing it right away :) Staying with an older version of
lucene for a longer period of time has been a bad idea.
Shai
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Shai for the quick response. Have responded inline.
On Fri, Aug 2
the indices and modifying
the headers, something of that sort)? We are not expecting any compaction
during the process.
Currently it takes 4 minutes for a GB of index to get migrated to
4.1 from 2.3.1. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash
to be compatible.
Thanks again.
Shai
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Team,
We are migrating from lucene version 2.3.1 to 4.1. We are
migrating
the indices as well, and we do this in two steps 2.3.1 to 3.6.2 and 3.6.2
() in the current version.
Is it the TermsEnum and/or DocsEnum that is occupying namespaces? Is there
a way to close the same? Please help. TIA.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai, India
which I can facet on tokenized
fields. Bobo-browse from LinkedIn is doing it, but I guess there is no
active development happening over there, and is still compatible with
Lucene 3.x. We are on Lucene 4.1. Your advice would help. TIA.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India.
, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Team,
We have three indices by three different versions of
lucene(2.3,3.6
and 4.1). Is there anyway I can identify which index belongs to which
version somehow programatically? Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks
...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:31 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: WildCardTermEnum in Lucene 4.1
Team,
We are in the process of migrating our codebase from
.
I don't find this in 4.1 and did some googling, but in vein. May be
some one can help with the equivalent of this WildCardTermEnum in 4.1?
Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India,
+91 9626975420
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
In that case, it should be fine. Otherwise you would need to reindex.
Thank you Uwe.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee
,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India
+91 9626975420
about using the same in
4.1. Thanks in advance.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 8:38 AM
non-western
language. If you change your code to use Version.LUCENE_41, you have to
reindex.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie
Emmanuel
2013/3/5 Ramprakash Ramamoorthy youngestachie...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Emmanuel Espina
espinaemman...@gmail.comwrote:
100 terms in a boolean query is not so costly. You could wrap that
query
in
a ConstantScoreQuery to avoid the score calculation
. Some good discussion on this.
--
Ian.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello team,
I have a query and I am explaining it as below.
Objective : To split index and store, and combine
, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello team,
I have a query and I am explaining it as below.
Objective : To split index and store, and combine it during query time
Approach : Have two index writers, one will write a storedField
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you give an example of what you mean by multi-level grouping?
Say for instance, I have indexed a library
, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I read from this page
http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/grouping/index.html that, grouping
is
possible only when I do a block index and place a binary marker at the
end
of each
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Just use the 2-pass
and tokens
Okay, so, fields that would normally need to be tokenized must be stored as
both raw strings for grouping and tokenized text for keyword search. Simply
use copyField to copy from one to the other.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
Sent: Monday
, understood. That was what I meant.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:07 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping and tokens
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com
...@lucene.apache.org
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India.
+91 9626975420
, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian and et al,
Just a doubt. Now that I have to index and store(disk space is a
constraint here). I have identified that storing as byte[] helps save
some
disk. But it isn't possible to index
));
This means that my docs will be indexed and stored in the compressed
format? Hope I am right this time? Thanks Ian.
--
Ian.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Team,
I am facing a strange issue with term queries
://shaierera.blogspot.com/2012/12/lucene-facets-under-hood.htmlof
yours and came to know about the setDepth method in FacetRequest. Was
able to solve my use case with it. Thank you for the blog and the answer!
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com
fields.
Have other more experienced comment though before you start implementing
it.
Thank you Apostolis,
That is definitely giving me some headstarts. Will check with
this and also update this thread, when I infer.
2013/1/18 Ramprakash Ramamoorthy r4ramprak...@gmail.com
Dear
CompressingStoredFieldsFormat.
Currently we are pulling from trunk, which I guess is 5.x
branch. Very particular about 4.1 because, we need backward
compatibility
with 3.x. Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India
one doubt, how do I plug
this CompressingStoredFieldsFormat into my app, as in I tried bundling it
in a codec, but not sure if I am proceeding in the right path. Any pointers
would be of great help!
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie...@gmail.com
app, as in I tried
bundling
it in a codec, but not sure if I am proceeding in the right path. Any
pointers
would be of great help!
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 December 2012 13:03
To: java-user
://www.pangaea.de/
E-mail: uschind...@pangaea.de
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy [mailto:youngestachie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:36 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Separating the document dataset and the index dataset
StandardAnalyzer with Version_23 rather than Version_40.
Cheers,
Clive
Thank you Chive. That definitely helped!
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy youngestachie...@gmail.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Using
know.
--
Ian.
Thank you Ian, this is giving me some head starts.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand lucene 2.x indexes are not compatible with the latest
version
of lucene 4.0. However we have all our
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Danil Ε’ORIN torin...@gmail.com wrote:
Ironically most of the changes are in unicode handling and standard
analyzer ;)
Ouch! It hurts then ;)
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012
are not being met.
Here's an interesting blog you might want to read:
http://searchhub.org/dev/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/
Best
Erick
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
youngestachie...@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at this query :
-HOSTNAME:ram
41 matches
Mail list logo
