This strategy looks very promising.
One drawback is that documents must be added directly to the main
index for this to be efficient. This is a bit of a problem if there
is a document uniqueness requirement (a unique id field).
If one takes the approach of adding docs to a separate lucene index
Yonik Seeley wrote:
This strategy looks very promising.
One drawback is that documents must be added directly to the main
index for this to be efficient. This is a bit of a problem if there
is a document uniqueness requirement (a unique id field).
This is easy to do with a single index. Here's th
I'm trying to support an interface where documents can be added one at
a time at a high rate (via HTTP POST). You don't know all of the
documents ahead of time, so you can't delete them all ahead of time.
Given this constraint, it seems like you can do one of two things:
1) collect all the docume
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I'm trying to support an interface where documents can be added one at
a time at a high rate (via HTTP POST). You don't know all of the
documents ahead of time, so you can't delete them all ahead of time.
A simple solution is to queue documents as they're posted. When either
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 19:23, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> I don't really consider reading/writing to an NFS mounted FSDirectory to
> be viable for the very reasons you listed; but I haven't really found any
> evidence of problems if you take they approach that a single "writer"
> node indexes to local
Gelderbloem
Registered in England 3186704
-Original Message-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 May 2005 22:04
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices for Distributing Lucene Indexing and
Searching
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 19:23, Chris Hostetter wrote
---Original Message-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 May 2005 22:04
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices for Distributing Lucene Indexing and
Searching
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 19:23, Chris Hostetter wrote:
I don't really consider reading/writing
ecture? Any advice would be
> greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Peter Gelderbloem
> >
> > Registered in England 3186704
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 13 May 2005 22:04
> > To: java-user
w/proj/seda/
I am just reading up on it now. Does anyone have experience
building a
lucene system based on this architecture? Any advice would be
greatly
appreciated.
Peter Gelderbloem
Registered in England 3186704
-Original Message-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
edu/~mdw/proj/seda/
I am just reading up on it now. Does anyone have experience
building a
lucene system based on this architecture? Any advice would be
greatly
appreciated.
Peter Gelderbloem
Registered in England 3186704
-Original Message-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL
essage-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 May 2005 22:04
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices for Distributing Lucene Indexing and
Searching
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 19:23, Chris Hostetter wrote:
I don't really consider reading/writing to an NF
lucene system based on this architecture? Any advice would be
greatly
appreciated.
Peter Gelderbloem
Registered in England 3186704
-Original Message-
From: Luke Francl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 May 2005 22:04
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices
On Jul 14, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Cl, I should go have a look at that.. That begs another
question though, where does Nutch stand in terms of the ASF? Did I
read (or dream) that Nutch may be coming in under ASF? I guess I
should get myself subscribed to the Nutch mailing
t;>> an insignificant time. You also have to use bookkeeping to work
>
> >>>> out
> >>>>
> >>>> if a 'job' has not been completed in time (maybe failure by the
> >>>> worker) and decide whether the job should be resubmi
On 15/07/2005, at 3:57 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
The problem that I saw (from your email only) with the "ship the full
little index to the Queen" approach is that, from what I understand,
you eventually do addIndexes(Directory[]) in there, and as this
optimizes things in the end, this means y
Paul Smith wrote:
I'm not sure how generic or Nutch-specific Doug and Mike's MapReduce
code is in Nutch, I haven't been paying close enough attention.
Me too.. :) I didn't even know Nutch was now fully in the ASF, and I'm
a Member... :-$
Let me pipe in on behalf of the Nutch project... T
I am thinking of having a cluster of one indexer and a few searchers 1
to n.
The indexer will consist of a number of stages as defined in SEDA. I
must still do this decomposition. the resulting index will be published
via message q to the searchers that will stop doing searches long enough
to upda
See the paper at: http://labs.google.com/papers/mapreduce.html
"MapReduce is a programming model and an associated implementation for
processing and generating large data sets. Users specify a map
function that processes a key/value pair to generate a set of
intermediate key/value pairs, and a re
18 matches
Mail list logo
