Hello,
Is there a way to influence lucene's generation of ids while indexing.
my requirement is. I want to have different indexes where no index should have
ids that have been assigned to an index earlier.
for instance
IDX1 : {0.100}
IDX2: {101...200}
IDX3: {201...300}
but not
11 dec 2006 kl. 16.15 skrev Waheed Mohammed:
Is there a way to influence lucene's generation of ids while indexing.
If you speak of the Lucene "document number", then no. And are you
aware of the fact that document numbers are eligable for change at
any time (optimization) without giving
I don't believe that this is possible. Or desirable. Lucene IDs are mutable,
even within an index. That is, if you index docs that get, say, IDs 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 and delete doc 2 and optimize, Docs 4 and 5 get reassigned IDs 3 and 4
(or something similar).
You're far better off controlling this your
On 12/11/06, Waheed Mohammed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to influence lucene's generation of ids while indexing.
my requirement is. I want to have different indexes where no index should
have
ids that have been assigned to an index earlier.
for instance
IDX1 : {0.1
ind Me [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:34 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene id generation
>
> On 12/11/06, Waheed Mohammed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is there a way to inf
t; -Original Message-
: > From: Find Me [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:34 PM
: > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: > Subject: Re: Lucene id generation
: >
: > On 12/11/06, Waheed Mohammed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > >
: >
ustom document ids?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Find Me [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:34 PM
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene id generation
> >
> > On 12/11/06, Waheed Mohammed <[EMAIL PROTE
11 dec 2006 kl. 20.04 skrev Chris Hostetter:
if you are trying to think of Lucene's docid as a meaningful
number, you
are doing something wrong.
There is this one place where I use it. The index is add only, and
the only data that interests me is the stored field MyID, also kept
track i
Karl: it sounds like you are just refering to using the lucene docid as an
array index for the FieldCache of your "MyID" field ... that's a perfectly
valid use of the docid, the key being that you aren't expecting the id to
contain any meaningful data itself -- it's just a refrence number.
: > if
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:35 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene id generation
>
>
> Karl: it sounds like you are just refering to using the
> lucene docid as an array index for the FieldCache of your
> "MyID&quo
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:35 AM
: > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: > Subject: Re: Lucene id generation
: >
: >
: > Karl: it sounds like you are just refering to using the
: > lucene docid as an array index for the FieldCache of your
: > "MyID" field ... that&
To use but directly the docId would render efficient and fastest the searches
much. Thoughts to the possibility of being able to apply a first
CachingWrapperFilter F1 on an index and a second CachingWrapperFilter F2 on an
other index and after to make (F1 AND F2) and to even extract the info of
But you can do something very similar and very quickly using a unique ID
(not the Lucene ID) that's shared across the indexes (assuming I'm reading
your issue correctly). Then use TermDocs/TermEnum and create your filters
that way.
I predict endless problems with user (programmer) errors if Lucen
Antonio Bruno wrote:
> To use but directly the docId would render efficient and fastest the
> searches much. Thoughts to the possibility of being able to apply a
> first CachingWrapperFilter F1 on an index and a second
> CachingWrapperFilter F2 on an other index and after to make (F1 AND
> F2) and
The problem in reality consists on the fact to have an only dictionary of the
terms for all the fields. If the dictionary of the terms is the many large
performances of a search they diminish, even if the search is made on a single
term. Then it would be wanted to be able to index the fields of
I see your point, but I have to ask whether this is a practical or a
theoretical problem? If it's a practical one, perhaps you'd be willing to
talk about the issue you're actually trying to solve and maybe we can come
up with a solution within the current framework. I know others on the list
have
16 matches
Mail list logo
