Issue observed while releasing searcher from SearcherManager for MultiSearcher

79746 still has pending deleted files; cannot initialize IndexWriter at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.(IndexWriter.java:767) I'm suspecting issue may be with the MultiSearcher that I'm using for searcher over multiple index folders. I'm getting the searcher instance

RE: MultiSearcher in lucene4.0

Hi, MultiSearcher was deprecated in Lucene 3.1 and removed in Lucene 4.0. Use a MultiReader on top of a set of IndexReaders and construct a simple IndexSearcher using the MultiReader. See also the Javadocs how to do this. Before: MultiSearcher( IndexSearcher(IndexReader), IndexSearcher

Re: Possible to do an indexorder sort over a MultiSearcher?

Hi, Additionally, since the latest 3.x version (not sure if its already in 3.4), there is a new searchAfter method in IndexSearcher that allows deep paging. As MultiSearcher is deprecated, it is not supported there, so use MultiReader with IndexSearcher. Uwe -- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee

Re: Possible to do an indexorder sort over a MultiSearcher?

Hi, MultiReader is the way to go. MultiSearcher is broken and therefore deprecated. See javadocs since Lucene 3.1. Uwe -- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de Alexander Devine schrieb: Hi all, I'm an trying to provide a way to efficiently allow a c

Possible to do an indexorder sort over a MultiSearcher?

Hi all, I'm an trying to provide a way to efficiently allow a client to page over all of the documents in multiple Lucene indexes that I'm querying with a MultiSearcher (~1-2 million docs). Unfortunately, I can't use the standard paging algorithm of getting TopDocs to the last re

RE: A bug in multisearcher?

il: [email protected] > -Original Message- > From: hao yan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:56 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Xiaoyang Gu; hao yan > Subject: A bug in multisearcher? > > hi, guys > > Xiaoyang and I today just found a

Re: A bug in multisearcher?

2011-05-14 haichengyl 发件人： hao yan 发送时间： 2011-05-14 04:56:27 收件人： java-user 抄送： Xiaoyang Gu; hao yan 主题： A bug in multisearcher? hi, guys Xiaoyang and I today just found a bug of lucene. This is actually a Multi-searcher bug. In particular, If we search with Not on NumericRange

RE: A bug in multisearcher?

Hi, This is a well-known bug, which is unfixable (query rewrite across different searchers is wrong). In general you should use a MultiReader on your IndexReaders and use a simple IndexSearcher on top of that MultiReader. MultiSearcher and ParallelMultiSearcher were deprecated in 3.1 because of

A bug in multisearcher?

hi, guys Xiaoyang and I today just found a bug of lucene. This is actually a Multi-searcher bug. In particular, If we search with Not on NumericRange and we use MultiSearcher, we will wrong search results (However, if we use IndexSearcher, the result is correct). Basically the NotOfNumericRange

Re: Should I use MultiSearcher?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2756. -- Ian. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > 2011/3/24 Uwe Schindler : >> Don't use MultiSearcher. Instead create a MultiReader around the separate >> IndexReaders for each index and pass that Mult

Re: Should I use MultiSearcher?

ex_2009/"),  FSDirectory.open("c:/index_2010/") ... > Most searches will run on the current year's FSDirectory, but if I want old > product I can use MultiSearcher. > > Which option sounds better? > The 1st seems easier to code. > But I thought the 2nd might have be

Re: Should I use MultiSearcher?

2011/3/24 Uwe Schindler : > Don't use MultiSearcher. Instead create a MultiReader around the separate > IndexReaders for each index and pass that MultiReader to a conventional > IndexSearcher as IndexReader. MultiSearcher is very buggy. Could you elaborate on this point at all,

RE: Should I use MultiSearcher?

Don't use MultiSearcher. Instead create a MultiReader around the separate IndexReaders for each index and pass that MultiReader to a conventional IndexSearcher as IndexReader. MultiSearcher is very buggy. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de

Should I use MultiSearcher?

lter out the current year, when needed) 2) Keep separate indexes - FSDirectory per year: FSDirectory.open("c:/index_2009/"), FSDirectory.open("c:/index_2010/") ... Most searches will run on the current year's FSDirectory, but if I want old product I can use MultiSearche

RE: Filters do not work with MultiSearcher?

Thanks. Now I understand. We changed my implementation to hold multiple bit sets, one per index reader. Then we return the correct bit set based upon which reader is being passed in. The results are exactly what we need. This is our first use of the MultiSearcher (as if that wasn&#

Re: Filters do not work with MultiSearcher?

search on two indices joined by a > MultiSearcher.  Unfortunately, it appears there is an issue in the lucene > code that is causing the filter to be simply reused at the starting ordinal > for each individual index instead of being augmented by the starting document > identifier.  

Filters do not work with MultiSearcher?

We are attempting to perform a filtered search on two indices joined by a MultiSearcher. Unfortunately, it appears there is an issue in the lucene code that is causing the filter to be simply reused at the starting ordinal for each individual index instead of being augmented by the starting

How to delete documents from an index and how to reset de remote multisearcher so the deleted docs not being shown in the search results ???

Hi every body: I am using lucene version 2.3.2 to index and search my documents. The problem is that I have a remote search server implemented this way: [code] Searcher parallelSearcher; try { parallelSearcher = new ParallelMultiSearcher(search

Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option Hi, I just realized it was a bug in my code. On a related note, is it possible to Sort based on reverse index order ? Thanks, ~preetham Uwe Schindler wrote: Hallo Preetham, never heard of this. What Lucene version do you use

Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

- From: Preetham Kajekar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option Hi, I just realized it was a bug in my code. On a related note, is it possible to Sort based on reverse index order ? Thanks

Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

de > eMail: [email protected] > >> -Original Message- >> From: Preetham Kajekar [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:27 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option >> >> Hi, &

RE: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -Original Message- > From: Preetham Kajekar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option > > Hi, > I just realized it was

Re: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

indexes not into a MultiSearcher, instead open an IndexReader for both indexes and combine both readers to a MultiReader. This MultiReader can be used like a conventional single index and searched with IndexSearcher. If the error then disappears, there may be a bug. If not, something with your indexes

RE: MultiSearcher query with Sort option

Hallo Preetham, never heard of this. What Lucene version do you use? To check out, try the search in andifferent way: Combine the two indexes not into a MultiSearcher, instead open an IndexReader for both indexes and combine both readers to a MultiReader. This MultiReader can be used like a

MultiSearcher query with Sort option

Hi, I am using a MultiSearcher to search 2 indexes. As part of my query, I am sorting the results based on a field (which in NOT_ANALYSED). However, i seem to be getting hits only from one of the indexes. If I change to Sort.INDEX_ORDER, I seem to be getting results from both. Is this a know

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

, M From: Mark Miller To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:52:24 PM Subject: Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces You might try a constant score wildcard query (similar to a filter) - I think

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

day, April 2, 2009 2:34:47 PM Subject: Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces Ah, I get it now. Given that you bumped your max clause up, it makes sense. I'm pretty sure that the wildcard expansion is the root or your memory problems. The folks on the

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

zzy search. > > Which goes back to the max clause problem. Lucene's default Max Clause is > 1024, is there any reason behind this max? > > Thanks, > > M > > > > From: Erick Erickson > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, April 2,

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

e.org Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:34:47 PM Subject: Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces Ah, I get it now. Given that you bumped your max clause up, it makes sense. I'm pretty sure that the wildcard expansion is the root or your memory problems. The fo

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

m guessing that might have caused the usage of too much memory? > > I'll try the explain on you've suggested. > > Thanks, > > M > > > > > ____ > From: Erick Erickson > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:51:13 PM > Subjec

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

that might have caused the usage of too much memory? I'll try the explain on you've suggested. Thanks, M From: Erick Erickson To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:51:13 PM Subject: Re: Search using MultiSearcher generate

Re: Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

:h* +content:d* +content:s* > +content:a* +content:w* +content:b* +content:c* +content:m* +content:e*) > +((+sender:cpuser9 +viewers:cpuser4) (+sender:cpuser4 +viewers:cpuser9) > (+viewers:cpuser9 +viewers:cpuser4)) > > The Searcher is a MultiSearcher with 4 IndexSearchers pointing to

Search using MultiSearcher generates OOM on a 1GB total Partitioned indeces

+viewers:cpuser4) (+sender:cpuser4 +viewers:cpuser9) (+viewers:cpuser9 +viewers:cpuser4)) The Searcher is a MultiSearcher with 4 IndexSearchers pointing to 4 different Lucene Index. This search returns very few records, several ten thousand hits. Java is assigned with 1GB max memory. Somehow this

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

e-java-user/200707.mbox/%3c070320071521.6119.468a6964000b3e7517e72205884484070a9c0701030...@comcast.net%3e I'm looking at using this in the multisearcher class, and do: search(query,filter,pageHitCollector) I intend to use comparators to do the sorting and use collections.sort(). I would be grateful for any feedback on wheth

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

e: > Hi > I've come across the PageHitCollector class from the: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200707.mbox/%3c070320071521.6119.468a6964000b3e7517e72205884484070a9c0701030...@comcast.net%3e > > I'm looking at using this in the

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

Hi I've come across the PageHitCollector class from the: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200707.mbox/%3c070320071521.6119.468a6964000b3e7517e72205884484070a9c0701030...@comcast.net%3e I'm looking at using this in the multisearcher class, and do: search(qu

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

asically, the FileSortedHitQueue is just a sorting mechanism you > implement yourself. But I can't help but think that there's an easier > way, although I'll have to admit I haven't used MultiSearcher enough > to offer much guidance. That'll teach me to sen

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

Basically, the FileSortedHitQueue is just a sorting mechanism you implement yourself. But I can't help but think that there's an easier way, although I'll have to admit I haven't used MultiSearcher enough to offer much guidance. That'll teach me to send something o

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

HI Erick Thanks for your reply, glad to see I'm not the only person working/developing on a Sunday! I'm not sure how the FieldSortedHitQueue works and how it can be applied to the search method exposed by MultiSearcher. Would it be possible to clarify abit more or even point to some

Re: Pagination with MultiSearcher

You could do something with FieldSortedHitQueue as a post-search sort, but I wonder if this would work for you... public TopFieldDocs *search*(Query

Pagination with MultiSearcher

Hi I'm looking at trying to implement pagination for my search project. I've been google-ing for a solution. So far no luck. I've seen implementations of HitCollector which looks promising, however my search method has to completely change. For example I'm currently using the following:

Re: Lucene: MultiSearcher

Excellent, that's the way to go. I hadn't realized that method was public. Mike Daniel Noll wrote: Michael McCandless wrote: You could look at the docID of each hit, and compare to the .maxDoc() of each underlying reader. There is also MultiSearcher#subSearcher(int) which

Re: Lucene: MultiSearcher

Michael McCandless wrote: You could look at the docID of each hit, and compare to the .maxDoc() of each underlying reader. There is also MultiSearcher#subSearcher(int) which also works as you add more without having to do the maths yourself. Daniel -- Daniel Noll

Re: Lucene: MultiSearcher

You could look at the docID of each hit, and compare to the .maxDoc() of each underlying reader. MultiSearcher logically "concatenates" the docIDs. However, docIDs are an internal identifier for Lucene, so it's always possible in a new release of Lucene that how docID

Lucene: MultiSearcher

Hello, i have a short question to the MultiSearcher. Is it possible to identify from which index a result/hit comes when i use a MultiSearcher (2 Indizes)? Thank you for your help. Greets Oliver

MultiSearcher: close()

Hi I have a class that uses the MultiSearcher inorder to perform search using different other searches. Here is a snippet of the class: MultiSearcher multiSearcher = null; try { multiSearcher = new MultiSearcher(searchers.toArray(new IndexSearcher[] {})); QueryParser

Re: Multisearcher

reate Index such that Field1 is stored in index1 and Field2 is stored in index2. Can I use Multisearcher to search for Field1 in index1 and Field2 index2 and get the merged results? Thanks & Regards, Shishir Jain - To un

Multisearcher

Hi, Doc1: Field1, Field2 Doc2: Field1, Field2 If I create Index such that Field1 is stored in index1 and Field2 is stored in index2. Can I use Multisearcher to search for Field1 in index1 and Field2 index2 and get the merged results? Thanks & Regards, Shishir Jain

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

Any commets are suggestions are greatly appreciated. Regards Ganesh - Original Message - From: "Ganesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:45 PM Subject: Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting? Multisearcher after performing

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

Multisearcher after performing search on second index, adds the resultant docid with the maxdocid of the first index. In my case it would be 3. After incrementing the docid, the document is inserted in to the FieldDocSortedHitQueue. FieldDocSortedHitQueue is an extension of priority queue

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

because when you want to find X of second index, shoud pass docId=3 to MultiSearcher and MultiSearcher can Find Sub Search of this Document with calculation length of all subSearcher. for example when you get doc with DocID 3(Second X), multisearch (see the code of multisearcher doc(int i)), mines

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

In IndexA there are 3 docs DocID, Terms 0,X 1,X Y 2,X Z In IndexB there are 3 docs DocID, Terms 0,X 1,X Y 2,X Z When i do sort on indexed order using Multisearcher and ParallelMultiSearcher, it returns the result 0,X 3,X 1,X Y 4,X Y 2,X Z 5,X Z But it should be in the order of 0,1,2,3,4,5

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

Multisearcher and ParallelMultiSearcher, when requested to sort on doc (indexed order), it merges the result by docID of each DB. Regards Ganesh - Original Message - From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Mu

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

minute. When i do a warmup query with sort of timestamp then the cpu is spiked to 100% and this is happening for every minute. In order to avoid these issues, i am planning to break my DB and to do sort on indexed order. Will multisearcher will maintain indexed order on sorting? If you

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

timestamp then the cpu is spiked to 100% and this is happening for every minute. In order to avoid these issues, i am planning to break my DB and to do sort on indexed order. Will multisearcher will maintain indexed order on sorting? Regards Ganesh - Original Message - From: "

Re: Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

27;t want to sort on datetime as it > is taking huge RAM. I want to sort on indexed order. Using Multisearcher or > ParallelMultiSearcher will maintain the index order. If it does then i don't > need to merge the indexDB. > > Regards > Ganesh > > > > Send

Multisearcher will maintain index order sorting?

Hello all, I need to maintain multiple db and i don't want to sort on datetime as it is taking huge RAM. I want to sort on indexed order. Using Multisearcher or ParallelMultiSearcher will maintain the index order. If it does then i don't need to merge the indexDB. Regards Gane

Caching Filters and docIds when using MultiSearcher/IndexSearcher(MultiReader)...

ups. In the MultiSearcher there is subDoc and subSearcher, but there's no such beast for an IndexReader to find the real reader/doc from the pseudo one. This also raises the question about MultiSearcher vs IndexSearcher(MultiReader) which, even after reading the the archives, I am unsure

Re: MultiSearcher and TopFieldDocCollector

: The idea was to override TopFieldDocCollector to do the sorting etc. and only : load the full document for those we need to display. But, I haven't found an : easy way to use TopFieldDocCollector (FieldSortedHitQueue etc.) with : MultiSearcher. I don't understand this statement ...

MultiSearcher and TopFieldDocCollector

rride TopFieldDocCollector to do the sorting etc. and only load the full document for those we need to display. But, I haven't found an easy way to use TopFieldDocCollector (FieldSortedHitQueue etc.) with MultiSearcher. Is there an easy way I've missed? Thanks for any

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

lr - Nutch - Original Message From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2008 3:32:56 PM Subject: RE: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit > Right... but trust me, you really wouldn't want to.

RE: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

> Right... but trust me, you really wouldn't want to. You need > distributed search at that level anyway. Hm, 2 billion small docs are not so much. Why do I need distributed search and what exactly do you means with distributed search? Multiple IndexSearchers? Multiple processes? Multiple machin

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this mean that I cannot search indexes with more than 2 billion docs at > all with a single IndexSearcher? Right... but trust me, you really wouldn't want to. You need distributed search at that level anyway. -Yonik --

RE: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

Does this mean that I cannot search indexes with more than 2 billion docs at all with a single IndexSearcher? > -Original Message- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Samstag, 8. März 2008 18:57 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: MultiSearc

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

Random text can often be pretty slow when done per word. I think you will have to modify the MultiSearcher a bit. The MultiSearcher takes a global id space and converts to and from an individual Searcher id space. The MultiSearcher's id space is limited to an int as well, but I think i

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 00:03 +0100, Ray wrote: > I am currently running a small random text indexer with 400 docs/second. > It will reach 2 billion in around 45 days. If you are just doing it to test large indexes (in terms of document count), then you need to look into your index-generation code.

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

s. > > I really hope you all who are saying 2 billion docs > will bring lucene to its knees are wrong... > > Ray. > > - Original Message - > From: "Erick Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:40 PM > Subjec

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

you all who are saying 2 billion docs will bring lucene to its knees are wrong... Ray. - Original Message - From: "Erick Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:40 PM Subject: Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit We

Re: MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

LUE limit of documents, but can happily > search them all with a MultiSearcher if all combined returned > hits don't add up to the Integer.MAX_VALUE themselves ? > > Kind regards, > > Ray. > > >

MultiSearcher to overcome the Integer.MAX_VALUE limit

Hey Guys, just a quick question to confirm an assumption I have. Is it correct that I can have around 100 Indexes each at its Integer.MAX_VALUE limit of documents, but can happily search them all with a MultiSearcher if all combined returned hits don't add up to the Integer.MAX_VALUE thems

Re: Analyzer to use with MultiSearcher using various indexes for multiple languages

On Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2007, Jay Hill wrote: > We > have a requirement to search across multiple languages, so I'm planning > to use MultiSearcher, passing an array of all IndexSearchers for each > language. You will need to analyze the query once per language and

Analyzer to use with MultiSearcher using various indexes for multiple languages

ave a requirement to search across multiple languages, so I'm planning to use MultiSearcher, passing an array of all IndexSearchers for each language. But I'm not sure how to set up an Analyzer for the IndexSearchers properly. Any pointers about how to set up the MultiSearcher for use on inde

RE: does the MultiSearcher class calculate IDF properly?

Thank you for the response. I logged a bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1087 -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: does the MultiSearcher class calculate

Re: does the MultiSearcher class calculate IDF properly?

a quick glance at the code seems to indicate that MultiSearcher has code for calcuating the docFreq accross all of the Searchables when searching (or when the docFreq method is explicitly called) but that explain method just delegates to Searchable that the specific docid came from. if you

does the MultiSearcher class calculate IDF properly?

gether with the MultiSearcher? Code is like: MultiSearcher multi = new MultiSearcher(searchables); Hits hits = multi.search(query); for(int i=0; i

Re: multireader vs multisearcher

MultiReader is more efficient and is preferred when possible. MultiSearcher allows further functionality. Every time an index has more than a single segment (which is. to say almost every index except for after calling optimize()), Opening an IndexReader (or an IndexSearcher) above that index

multireader vs multisearcher

Hi: What is the difference between using: 1) MultiReader reader=; // create multi reader from different indexes IndexSearcher searcher=new IndexSearcher(reader); searcher.search(); vs. 2) IndexSearcher searcher1=... IndexSearcher searcher 2=.. MultiSearcher searcher=new

RE: Sorting with MultiSearcher

EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 November 2007 13:22 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sorting with MultiSearcher Any other info or code snippets? I sort on multisearchers all the time and have never seen that behavior. - Mark (sorting on multisearchers since Lucene 1.4 ) WATHELET Thomas w

Re: Sorting with MultiSearcher

Any other info or code snippets? I sort on multisearchers all the time and have never seen that behavior. - Mark (sorting on multisearchers since Lucene 1.4 ) WATHELET Thomas wrote: Hi, I have few Indexes with the same structure. I'm using MultiSearcher to search into those indexes and w

Sorting with MultiSearcher

Hi, I have few Indexes with the same structure. I'm using MultiSearcher to search into those indexes and when I try to sort the result by field the result is sort by field and by index (we have all results from index1 and then index2,...) but I would like to have the result sorted on th

RE: MultiSearcher with mulitple filter

Wow Mark, quite the hint. Thanks so much. Spencer -Original Message- From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 14, 2007 12:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MultiSearcher with mulitple filter Here is a hint: package org.apache.lucene.search; import

Re: MultiSearcher with mulitple filter

Here is a hint: package org.apache.lucene.search; import java.io.IOException; /** * Implements search over a set of Searchables using multiple filters. */ public class MultiFilterMultiSearcher extends MultiSearcher { public MultiFilterMultiSearcher(Searchable[] searchables

MultiSearcher with mulitple filter

Hi List, Thanks in advance for the help. I can't wrap my head around the MultiSearcher. I need to search across multiple indexes, but also need to filter documents from users based on Access. The problem seems to be that MultiSearcher takes in 1 filter, however my filter varies from one

RE: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment

That works, thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian

Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment

On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This may seem like a naïve question - since the garbage collection is not enforcable, is it possible to send a flag to the IndexReader to give this up once the reader is no longer needed? You call close() on the IndexReader (or the IndexSear

RE: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment

: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem I'm having is once the MultiSearcher is open, it holds on to > t

Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment

On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem I'm having is once the MultiSearcher is open, it holds on to the index file An IndexReader holds open the files... this is a feature. Not holding the file open would mean that the index would actively change while bei

MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment

We're using a MultiSearcher to search against multiple lucene indexes which runs inside of a web application in jboss 4.0.4. We're also using a standalone app running in a different jboss server which gets periodic updates from an oracle database and updates the lucene index. Both th

Re: MultiSearcher, Hits and createWeight

Israel, I don't really know much about MultiSearcher, but just to clarify: are you saying that the change you have works ok, as long as people are also using hte patch in LUCENE-789 (which will be in 2.2) or are you saying that the change you tried doesn't work when using a custom simil

Re: MultiSearcher, Hits and createWeight

using MultiSearcher and RemoteSearcher. When investigating some performance issues, I noticed that there is a lot of back-and-forth traffic between the servers during the weight calculation. Although MultiSearcher has a method called createWeight that minimizes the calls to the sub-searchers, this

MultiSearcher, Hits and createWeight

Hi, I am developing a distributed index, using MultiSearcher and RemoteSearcher. When investigating some performance issues, I noticed that there is a lot of back-and-forth traffic between the servers during the weight calculation. Although MultiSearcher has a method called createWeight that

Re: In memory MultiSearcher

You're right, I am suggesting that you use the Lucene caching and see if it is adequate. Mind you, I have no clue whether your application will be well served by this or not, I've just seen too many examples of folks (includeing me) jumping into a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to be ab

Re: In memory MultiSearcher

rcher on a MultiReader instead ... that should be much faster then youre MultiSearcher. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: In memory MultiSearcher

Erick, Thanks for the reply, this is a web application. If you want to serve image files in a scalable fashion on the Internet you make Apache serve them from memory, not the filesystem. For databases, some sites use a distributed object memory caching system such as memcached. I was hoping th

Re: In memory MultiSearcher

on a MultiReader instead ... that should be much faster then youre MultiSearcher. -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: In memory MultiSearcher

that's too slow... I ask because I am searching FS-based indexes that are 4G with no problem. The index *was* 8G and had only a 10% performance hit. Best Erick On 5/21/07, Peter W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I have been using a large, in memory MultiSearcher that is reac

In memory MultiSearcher

Hello, I have been using a large, in memory MultiSearcher that is reaching the limits of my hardware RAM with this code: try { IndexSearcher[] searcher_a= { new IndexSearcher(new RAMDirectory(index_one_path)), new IndexSearcher(new

Re: Clustering in MultiSearcher Searchables

: Suppose user makes a search for "X" and he get 200 hits from s[0], 150 hits : from s[1] and 300 hits from s[2]. Now we need to cluster/group the results : according to each searcher. it sounds like you don't really want a multisearcher .. it sounds like you just want to sea

Re: Clustering in MultiSearcher Searchables

;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Sawan, If I understand the question correctly, you use MultiSearcher over three searchers s[0], s[1], s[2], get some 3000 search results, and for result x (0<=x<3000) need to know if it came from s[0], s[1], or s[2]. If so, take a look at that MultiSearcher.subS

RE: MultiSearcher w/per-index filtering

Original Message- From: Doron Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MultiSearcher w/per-index filtering Hi Peter, I think this is already taken care of by CachingWrapperFilter - because its caching is (like filtering)

  1   2   3   >