In your approach, roughly how many filters do you have cached? It
seems like it could be quite a few (one for each color, one for each
type, etc)?
You might be able to modify the new (on Lucene trunk)
FieldCacheRangeFilter to achieve this same filtering without actually
having to
Hi M.S.,
Do you think it would be cool to have some faceting built into Lucene at
some point?
-J
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Michael Stoppelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Yeah looks similar to what we've implemented for ourselves (although I
haven't looked at the implementation). We've got
Mike, Mike,
I have an implementation of FieldCacheTermsFilter (which uses field cache to
filter for a predefined set of terms) around if either of you are
interested. It is faster than materializing the filter roughly when the
filter matches more than 1% of the documents.
So it's not better for
It'd be great to get this into Lucene.
Does FieldCacheTermsFilter let you specify a set of arbitrary terms to
filter for, like TermsFilter in contrib/queries? And it's space/time
efficient once FieldCache is populated?
Mike
Tim Sturge wrote:
Mike, Mike,
I have an implementation of
Yes (mostly). It turns those terms into an OpenBitSet on the term array.
Then it does a fastGet() in the next() and skipTo() loops to see if the term
for that document is in the set.
The issue is that fastGet() is not as fast as the two inequalities in FCRF.
I didn't directly benchmark FCTF
It's LUCENE-1487.
Tim
On 12/10/08 1:13 PM, Tim Sturge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes (mostly). It turns those terms into an OpenBitSet on the term array.
Then it does a fastGet() in the next() and skipTo() loops to see if the term
for that document is in the set.
The issue is that
This use case sounds alot like faceted navigation, which Solr provides.
Mike
Michael Stoppelman wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working on upgrading to Lucene 2.4.0 from 2.3.2 and was trying to
integrate the new DodIdSet changes since o.a.l.search.Filter#bits()
method
is now depreciated. For our app
Yeah looks similar to what we've implemented for ourselves (although I
haven't looked at the implementation). We've got quite a custom version of
lucene at this point. Using Solr at this point really isn't a viable option,
but thanks for pointing this out.
M
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:47 AM,
Hi all,
I'm working on upgrading to Lucene 2.4.0 from 2.3.2 and was trying to
integrate the new DodIdSet changes since o.a.l.search.Filter#bits() method
is now depreciated. For our app we actually heavily rely on bits from the
Filter to do post-query filtering (I explain why below).
For example,
Michael,
The change from BitSet to DocIdSetIterator implies that you'll
need to choose an underlying data structure yourself.
A minimal approach would be to use DocIdBitSet around
BitSet, but there are better ways.
For your application you might consider to replace java's BitSet by
lucene's
10 matches
Mail list logo
