Thilo Goetz wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
From a performance perspective, I'd vote for having the filtering on
the iterator side of thing, where it already is. If one annotator
decides it needs a "filtered index" over annotations, that can
affect the performance of all ot
Marshall Schor wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
From a performance perspective, I'd vote for having the filtering on
the iterator side of thing, where it already is. If one annotator
decides it needs a "filtered index" over annotations, that can affect
the performance of all other annotators as we
Thilo Goetz wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we had filtering predicates as part of an index specification,
then we
could create indexes over subsets of types quite arbitrarily. Could
this
more general mechanism serve th
Marshall Schor wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we had filtering predicates as part of an index specification,
then we
could create indexes over subsets of types quite arbitrarily. Could this
more general mechanism serve this purpose better tha
Adam Lally wrote:
On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we had filtering predicates as part of an index specification,
then we
could create indexes over subsets of types quite arbitrarily. Could this
more general mechanism serve this purpose better than views?
I'm not sure
On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we had filtering predicates as part of an index specification, then we
could create indexes over subsets of types quite arbitrarily. Could this
more general mechanism serve this purpose better than views?
I'm not sure what you mean, "sub
Adam Lally wrote:
On 12/22/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
> (1) The CAS is the container for all of the analysis data (as per the
> UIMA spec). It must be possible to create FS directly on the CAS
> and there must be some reasonable way to retrieve the FS in the CA
On 12/22/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eddie Epstein wrote:
> Doesn't that previous discussion read on the topic of global indexes?
Is it my brain, or this sentence, that doesn't make any sense ;-) Could
you explain?
Must be Eddie's Southern US dialect. ;) I'm not familiar with
On 12/22/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
> (1) The CAS is the container for all of the analysis data (as per the
> UIMA spec). It must be possible to create FS directly on the CAS
> and there must be some reasonable way to retrieve the FS in the CAS
> without having
Eddie Epstein wrote:
We had previously discussed that using the base CAS as a single global
view was not useful for applications because of potential collisions, and
therefore recommended that a collection of multi-view analytics that need
a single "global" view should create a named view for th
We had previously discussed that using the base CAS as a single global
view was not useful for applications because of potential collisions, and
therefore recommended that a collection of multi-view analytics that need
a single "global" view should create a named view for that purpose.
Doesn't tha
Adam Lally wrote:
Now what you say about sofas is interesting. Currently, an index knows
nothing of views or sofas. The only thing that is checked when adding a
FS to an index is the FS's type. Are you suggesting that there should
be special code that prevents me from adding an annotation that
>
> * There is one "Global Index Repository" in the CAS (accessible by
> CAS.getGlobalIndexRepository() and CAS.addFsToGlobalIndexes())
>
> * Each view has its own Index Repository, containing only the indexes
> that are specific to that view. (accessible by
> CasView.getIndexRepository() and CasVi
A collection of quotes from Thilo about global indexes. After reading
all these I think I finally might be on the same wavelength... (we'll
see in a moment :)
On 12/22/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Global indexes should be shared. That is
also the spirit of the OASIS draft, I th
A few quick comments here, then I'll deal with the big issues in another email.
On 12/22/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
> In this discussion, I think some confusion arises from the use of
> "index" to mean both the index definition, and
> an instance (perhaps as
Marshall Schor wrote:
Re: Need for "Global indexes"
What is the use case or the global view set of indexes? I can't recall
the use-case for this, beyond
being able to get all the data. This thread has suggested other
utilities that can effectively
"merge" the results from other view's index
Marshall Schor wrote:
In this discussion, I think some confusion arises from the use of
"index" to mean both the index definition, and
an instance (perhaps associated with a particular view) of that index
definition.
Also, in this discussion, the term CAS seems sometimes to be specific to
wha
Re: Need for "Global indexes"
Adam Lally wrote:
>
> Moreover, I think the reverse direction should be true -- indexing an
> FS in a view's index repository DOES add it (at least conceptually) to
> indexes that apply to the CAS as a whole. I liked this latter idea
> because it provided a way t
In this discussion, I think some confusion arises from the use of
"index" to mean both the index definition, and
an instance (perhaps associated with a particular view) of that index
definition.
Also, in this discussion, the term CAS seems sometimes to be specific to
what we might call the bas
On 12/21/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) The CAS is the container for all of the analysis data (as per the
> UIMA spec). It must be possible to create FS directly on the CAS
> and there must be some reasonable way to retrieve the FS in the CAS
> without having to be concerened w
Adam Lally wrote:
On 12/21/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest to have duplicate indexes. What I meant to say
was, each view should have its own annotation index. In the CAS, each
of these annotation indexes can be accessed separately. In fact, I
think this is
On 12/21/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't mean to suggest to have duplicate indexes. What I meant to say
was, each view should have its own annotation index. In the CAS, each
of these annotation indexes can be accessed separately. In fact, I
think this is pretty much what yo
Adam Lally wrote:
I think this basically makes sense. I want to clarify though, that
what we *do* currently have different indexes for each view (for
example each view has its own annotation index, which holds the
annotations relating to that view's sofa). This is done by replicating
the index
On 12/21/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't thought this through yet, but here's how I see indexes and
their relation to views right now. Let me know if this agrees with your
views, or how it differs.
The index repository is a set of indexes, at least right now. All it
can do
I haven't thought this through yet, but here's how I see indexes and
their relation to views right now. Let me know if this agrees with your
views, or how it differs.
The index repository is a set of indexes, at least right now. All it
can do is to give you indexes. The index repository of
On 12/19/06, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we think of a CasView as a way of accessing a subset of the data
in the CAS, what are the pluses and minuses of having every view
have the same (shared) index definitions? Would it make more sense
to have each view have its own non-shared
If we think of a CasView as a way of accessing a subset of the data
in the CAS, what are the pluses and minuses of having every view
have the same (shared) index definitions? Would it make more sense
to have each view have its own non-shared set of indexes / definitions?
Pluses:
- A view which
27 matches
Mail list logo
