?
(at optimize, or whatever)
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-
To unsubscribe, e
?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
command line
JVM call - new
index searcher, etc...
The OS is caching the index file pretty well (only the memory size is the limit
of course).
Will my implementation's performance drop down a lot when I implement
DateFilter?
Regards,
Sanyi
Hi!
Does DateFilter work on fields indexed as UnStored?
Can I filter an UnStored field with values like 2004-11-05 ?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Thanx a lot!
Sanyi
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy,
[...]
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
program and it outputs
its results to the
standard output.
I guess your solution must be better ;)
If the communication parts of your code aren't top secret, can you please
share them with me/us?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only
Hi!
What is the simplest way to add synonyms for AND/OR/NOT operators?
I'd like to support two sets of operator words, so people can use either the
original english
operators and my custom ones for our local language.
Thank you for your attention!
Sanyi
:
(cat OORR kitty) AANNDD black AANNDD tail
Both sets of operators must work.
It must be some kind of a query parser modification/parametering, so there is
nothing to do with
the index.
I hope I was more specific now ;)
Thanx,
Sanyi
--- Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 21, 2004
Well, I guess I'd better recognize and replace the operator synonyms to their
original format
before passing them to QueryParser. I don't feel comfortable tampering with
Lucene's source code.
Anyway, thanx for the answers.
Sanyi
--- Morus Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Hatcher writes
Is SuSE 9.1 a LOT slower than WinXP pro?
2. The file system
Is reisefs a LOT slower than NTFS?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
it if the problem isn't in the file system.
I hope that the reason of slowness is reiserfs, because it is the easiest to
change.
What file systems are you people using Lucene on? And what are your experiences?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo
Could you try XP on your desktop
Sure, but I'll only do that I run out of ideas.
so your desktop is actually using
a 1.5GHz CPU for the search.
No, this is not true. It uses a 3.0GHz P4 then.
(HT means that you have two 3.0GHz P4s)
So, it is still surprising to me.
Regards,
Sanyi
think so. I'm using Windows 2000 pro and SuSE 9.0 and
(from my memory) Linux seems to be sightly faster, but I can't
provide any benchmark now.
Are you using reiserfs with SuSE?
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get
will prove to be fast enough, I'll search for other reasons
and will perform
longer tests for real-time monitoring.
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
about searching. Indexing is a lot faster on the desktop config.
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Thanx for the replies to you all.
I was looking for someone with the same experiences as mine ones, but it seems
that I'll have to
test this myself.
I'll try out my ideas and the most interesting ideas from you guys.
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you
why reindex?
Well, since I had different experiences with different analyzers I've tried, I
thougt that this
problem must origin from either the indexing or a lucene bug.
As stated at the end of my mail, I'd expect that to skip the
first term in the enum.
Yes, this must be a problem for me,
Enumerating the terms using WildcardTermEnum and an IndexReader seems to be too
buggy to use.
I'm now reimplementing my code using WildcardTermEnum.wildcardEquals which
seems to be better so
far.
--- Sanyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I have following problem with 1.4.2:
I'm searching
- leave the current implementation, raising an exception;
- handle the exception and limit the boolean query to the first 1024
(or what ever the limit is) terms;
- select, between the possible terms, only the first 1024 (or what
ever the limit is) more meaningful ones, leaving out all the
now.
Anyway, I think this is not the solution, this is a patch or workaround.
So, I'd be interested in some kind of well designed complete solution for this
problem.
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page
It works for me too on linux. Thanks for the test!
--- Morus Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sanyi writes:
How to perform phrase searches for more than four words?
This works well with 1.4.2:
aa bb cc dd
I pass the query as a command line parameter on XP: \aa bb cc dd
It is normally possible to reduce the numbers of such complaints a lot
by imposing a minimum prefix length
I've alread limited it to a minimum of 5 characters (abcde*).
I can still easily find (for the first try) situations where it starts to
search for minutes.
While another 5 char. partial
instead of saying No results, since there is no nonexistingword
in my document set,
so it doesn't even have to start collecting the variations of cab*.
Is there any path for this issue?
Thank you for your time!
Sanyi
(I'm using: lucene 1.4.2)
p.s.: Sorry for re-sending this message, I was first
of this, that you quickly reach the 1024 limit of clauses. I
automatically set it
to max int with the following line:
BooleanQuery.setMaxClauseCount( Integer.MAX_VALUE );
-Original Message-
From: Sanyi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
That's the point: there is no query optimizer in Lucene.
Sorry, I'm not very much into Lucene's internal Classes, I'm just telling your
the viewpoint of a
user. You know my users aren't technicians, so answers like yours won't make
them happy.
They will only see that I randomly don't allow
that matters is the number
of words which can
be four at max.
Regards,
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
for your time!
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
-lucene/nightly/2003-09-09/
It seems to be quite old, so please help me out!
Thanx,
Sanyi
--- Morus Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sanyi writes:
This query works as expected:
validword AND stopword
(throws out the stopword part and searches for validword)
This query seems to crash
But the fix seems to be included in 1.4.2.
see
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-lucene/CHANGES.txt?rev=1.96.2.4
item 5
Thank you! I'm just downloading 1.4.2.
I hope it'll work ;)
Sanyi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out
instead of saying No results, since there is no nonexistingword
in my document set,
so it doesn't even have to start collecting the variations of cab*.
Is there any path for this issue?
Thank you for your time!
Sanyi
(I'm using: lucene 1.4.2)
__
Do
30 matches
Mail list logo
