anks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
Chennai.
my search
performance, because it's just write and retrieve in the same order 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.m
earch 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.
is not split.". So I guess it splits on the first
> hyphen but not the second.
>
> 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
ck-major*, *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.
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.
> one time process.
>
Thank you Shai, 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:
>
>
ward to migrate the older indices 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
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
() 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.
t; --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> 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
&g
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 and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India.
+91 9626975420
would help.
Thanks in advance.
--
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India,
+91 9626975420
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: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:31 AM
> > To: java-use
e base.
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
-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
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 wrote:
>
>> In that case, it should be fine. Otherwise you would need to reindex.
>>
>> Thank you Uwe.
>
be glad if you can share some do's and dont's during migrating the
> > > indices, which you have experienced before.
> > >
> > > Also, the 2.3 indices were written using a standard analyzer
> > > then and the current indices will use stan
ese version. How 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:younges
ng), but it should be faster than doing two queries.
>
> Thanks
> Emmanuel
>
>
> 2013/3/5 Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
>
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Emmanuel Espina
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 100 terms in a boolean query is not so costly. You could wrap
s only
the store part (Already uses Lucene41PostingsFormat though) and then unzip
it as the user paginates(I could get the count and other meta from the
index itself, store being needed only on pagination). Hope I was able to
explain without an ambiguity.
>
> Thanks
> Emmanuel
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> 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
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
> wrote:
>
> >> Can you give an example of what you mean by multi-level grouping?
> >
> > Say for instance
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
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Michael McCandless <
> > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> >
>
e?
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I read from this page
> > http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/grouping/index.html that, grouping
> is
> > po
quot;.
>
> Yeah, yeah Jack, 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
>
> O
ne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Grouping 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
>
gray" and the
user searches for "shades". The result turns up in case the field is
tokenized. But here it doesn't, since it isn't tokenized. Hope I am clear?
In a nutshell, how do I use a groupby on a field that is also
tokenized?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -O
e I come across another interesting
solution.
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> wrote:
> > Ian and et al,
> >
> >Just a doubt. Now that I have to index and store(disk space is a
> > constraint
I go about this?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
> Yes, that looks fine. As far as I'm aware the compression is low
> level and transparent to user code.
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> wrote:
.add(new Field("published", b.getPublished(), fieldType));
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
>
axonomyReader to label the ordinals of each pair and return the table.
> That will work as long as the cardinality of 'a' and 'b' is sane :-)
>
> Shai
>
> Thank you Shai, I was able to achieve it roundabout. I read this
> blog<http://shaierera.blo
he same
> value in those 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
h_4x/>
> > >> ).
> > >>
> > >> Note that Lucene maintains two active branches for development:
> 'trunk'
> > >> (currently to be 5.0) and '4x' off of which all Lucene 4.x releases
> are
> > >> created.
> > >>
>
Tel.: +49 421 218 65595
> Fax: +49 421 218 65505
> http://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
> >
jpountz.net/post/33247161884/efficient-compressed-stored-f
> > > ields-with-lucene
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rahul
> > >
> >
> > Thank you Rahul. That indeed seems promising. Just one doubt, how do I
> > plug this CompressingStoredFields
Rahul. That indeed seems promising. Just 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:
was fixed.
> (2) Use StandardAnalyzer with Version_23 rather than Version_40.
>
> Cheers,
> Clive
>
> Thank you Chive. That definitely helped!
>
> ____
> From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, N
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Danil Ε’ORIN 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:
>
&g
x to 4.x, but should work
> > fine as far as I 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:
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
> wrote:
> > Take a look at this query :
> >
> > -HO
44 matches
Mail list logo
