On Mar 9, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
You need do make it a HashSet:
table = new HashSet( stopTable.keySet() );
Done.
Also... while you're at it... the private variable name is 'table'
which this HashSet certainly is *not* ;)
Well, depends on your definition of 'table' I suppose
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 20:51, Timothy Stone wrote:
Michael Giles wrote:
Tim,
Looks like you can only access it with a subscription. :( Sounds good,
though.
Really? I don't have a subscription. Got to it via the archives actually
now that I think about it:
Try Volume 7, Issue 12.
I'm looking for information on the largest document collection that Lucene
has been used to index, the biggest benchmark I've been able to find so far
is 1MM documents.
I'd like to generate some benchmarks for large collections (1-100MM) records
and would like to know if this is feasible without
I think even a 100K or 1MM doc collection will give you an idea about
the retrieval time/storage requirements (which, of course, are highly
dependent on what you index and how you index it). I know several
people have created collections with up to 50MM docs on a single
machine (not sure about
Try this link and scroll to top:
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=37296DE=1#RES
Thank you, Tim - excelent article.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:23 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Storing numbers
On
I use several collections, one of 1 200 000 documents, one of 3 800 000 and
another one of 12 000 000 documents (for the biggests) and the performances
are quite good (except for search with wildcards).
Our machine have 1 giga bites of memory and 2 CPU.
- Original Message -
From: Mark
Well usually the time of response are 5-10 sec max, it depends of the
queries (except for queries with a wildcard).
i put a time out of 30 seconds for all the queries.
queries with wildcard can fail because of java.lang.out.of.memories error
you can try yourself on the website of my compagny (but
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Also... while you're at it... the private variable name is 'table'
which this HashSet certainly is *not* ;)
Well, depends on your definition of 'table' I suppose :) I changed it
to a type-agnostic stopWords.
Did you know that internally HashSet uses a HashMap?
I sure
On Mar 10, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
I refuse to expose HashSet... sorry! :) But I did wrap what is
passed in, like above, in a HashSet in my latest commit.
Hm... You're doing this EVEN if the caller passes a HashSet directly?!
Well it was in the ctor. But I guess I'm not seeing
Hello,
I noticed that Lucene 1.3-final source builds a JAR file whose version
number is 1.4-rc1-dev. What does this mean? Will 1.4-final build as
1.5-rc1-dev?
Just Curious,
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It means we screwed up the timing somehow and changed the build file
version after we built the binary version, is my guess.
We'll be more careful with the 1.4 release and make sure this doesn't
happen then.
Erik
On Mar 10, 2004, at 8:34 PM, Jeff Wong wrote:
Hello,
I noticed that Lucene
Jeff Wong wrote:
I noticed that Lucene 1.3-final source builds a JAR file whose version
number is 1.4-rc1-dev. What does this mean? Will 1.4-final build as
1.5-rc1-dev?
Probably. If you modify the sources of a 1.3-final release, and build
them, you're not building 1.3-final, but a derivative.
On Mar 10, 2004, at 9:45 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Jeff Wong wrote:
I noticed that Lucene 1.3-final source builds a JAR file whose version
number is 1.4-rc1-dev. What does this mean? Will 1.4-final build
as
1.5-rc1-dev?
Probably. If you modify the sources of a 1.3-final release, and build
them,
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Also... you're HashSet constructor has to copy values from the
original HashSet into the new HashSet ... not very clean and this can
just be removed by forcing the caller to use a HashSet (which they
should).
I've caved in and gone HashSet all the way.
Did you not see my
Doug Cutting wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Also... you're HashSet constructor has to copy values from the
original HashSet into the new HashSet ... not very clean and this
can just be removed by forcing the caller to use a HashSet (which
they should).
I've caved in and gone HashSet all the
On Mar 10, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Also... you're HashSet constructor has to copy values from the
original HashSet into the new HashSet ... not very clean and this
can just be removed by forcing the caller to use a HashSet (which
they should).
I've caved in
I have a situation where I need to be able to find
incomplete word matches, for example a search for the
string 'ape' would return matches for 'grapes'
'naples' 'staples' etc. I have been searching the
archives of this user list and can't seem to find any
example of someone doing this.
At one
17 matches
Mail list logo
