On 5/20/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FYI, I'm in the process of updating to the latest nightly of lucene now.
I'm getting a test failure though... currently looking into it.
OK, the issue was that the QueryParser grammar has some stricter checking.
subword:http://www.yahoo.com
FYI, I'm in the process of updating to the latest nightly of lucene now.
I'm getting a test failure though... currently looking into it.
-Yonik
On 5/14/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/14/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14-May-07, at 1:01 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
On 5/14/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14-May-07, at 1:01 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I've audited the Lucene changes since 2.1, and don't see anything
> problematic, so perhaps we should upgrade to the latest lucene trunk
> to get:
> - file descriptor usage reduction (only one descr
On 14-May-07, at 1:01 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I've audited the Lucene changes since 2.1, and don't see anything
problematic, so perhaps we should upgrade to the latest lucene trunk
to get:
- file descriptor usage reduction (only one descriptor for all
norms now)
- leading + trailing wildcard
I've audited the Lucene changes since 2.1, and don't see anything
problematic, so perhaps we should upgrade to the latest lucene trunk
to get:
- file descriptor usage reduction (only one descriptor for all norms now)
- leading + trailing wildcard fix
- performance improvements (mainly lazy prox sk
