Thanks Dawid, glad I asked!
Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2018, 10:46 +0200 schrieb Dawid Weiss:
> Use MMapDirectory on a temporary location, Matthias. If you really
> need in-memory indexes, a new Directory implementation is coming
> (RAMDirectory will be deprecated, then removed), but the difference
>
Use MMapDirectory on a temporary location, Matthias. If you really
need in-memory indexes, a new Directory implementation is coming
(RAMDirectory will be deprecated, then removed), but the difference
compared to MMapDirectory is typically not worth the hassle. See this
issue for more discussion.
Hi,
Lucene provides different storage options for in-memory indexes. I
found three structures that would qualify for the task:
* RamDirectory (which I currently use for prototyping, but wonder if it
is the ideal choice for my task)
* MemoryIndex, which claims to have better performance and
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be indexed,
and then it worked as expected. I have never looked
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a
Ok. I reverted back to the version without a public clear() method.
Wolfgang.
On Nov 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, jm wrote:
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be indexed,
and then it worked as expected. I have never looked into lucenes inner
working so I am not
thanks. I'll try to get this working and see wether there is a perf
difference during the weekend.
On 11/23/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of interest, I've checked an implementation of something like
this into AnalyzerUtil SVN trunk:
/**
* Returns an analyzer wrapper
checking one last thing, just in case...
as I mentioned, I have previously indexed the same document in another
index (for another purpose), as I am going to use the same analyzer,
would it be possible to avoid analyzing the doc again?
I see IndexWriter.addDocument() returns void, so it does
I've never tried it, but I guess you could write an Analyzer and
TokenFilter that no only feeds into IndexWriter on
IndexWriter.addDocument(), but as a sneaky side effect also
simultaneously saves its tokens into a list so that you could later
turn that list into another TokenStream to be
Out of interest, I've checked an implementation of something like
this into AnalyzerUtil SVN trunk:
/**
* Returns an analyzer wrapper that caches all tokens generated by
the underlying child analyzer's
* token stream, and delivers those cached tokens on subsequent
calls to
*
On Nov 21, 2006, at 12:38 PM, jm wrote:
Ok, thanks, I'll give MemoryIndex a go, and if that is not good enoguh
I will explore the other options then.
To get started you can use something like this:
for each document D:
MemoryIndex index = createMemoryIndex(D, ...)
for each query Q:
21 nov 2006 kl. 16.43 skrev jm:
Any thoughts?
You can also try InstantiatedIndex, similair in speed and design with
a MemoryIndex, but can handle multiple documents, IndexReader,
IndexWriter, IndexModifier et.c. just like any Directory
implementation. It requires a minor patch to the
On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:43 AM, jm wrote:
Hi,
I have to decide between using a RAMDirectory and MemoryIndex, but
not sure what approach will work better...
I have to run many items (tens of thousands) against some queries (100
at most), but I have to do it one item at a time. And I already have
Ok, thanks, I'll give MemoryIndex a go, and if that is not good enoguh
I will explore the other options then.
On 11/21/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:43 AM, jm wrote:
Hi,
I have to decide between using a RAMDirectory and MemoryIndex, but
not sure what
17 matches
Mail list logo
