if you are trying to think of Lucene's docid as a meaningful number, you are doing something wrong.
A lot of people want to view Lucene docids the same way they look at auto-incrimented unique keys in a database -- don't do that. Instead think of them as memory addresses in C or C++ ... they are a handy numberic value that tells Lucene at what offset in various segment files it can find data about that document -- as your index changes, as data gets moved arround, docids change. the best corrallary that can be made to a database is not auto-generated unique keys, it's row numbers ... the physical row number of where that row is in the sequence of rows in your table -- a number most databases never give you access to unless you are dealing withthe low level internals of hte table, because as you add or deleted lots of data, as you drop and load new indexes those numbers can change. if you want control of a unique ID for each of hte documents in your index -- at one as a field just like any other. : Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:10:18 +0100 : From: Ramana Jelda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org : To: java-user@lucene.apache.org : Subject: RE: Lucene id generation : : I really lack this feature from lucene too. : Whatever the requirements from Mohammed, There surely I see some : improvements in search performance. : : My argument here is, why not lucene provides a mechanism to be able to : provide custom document ids? : : : > -----Original Message----- : > From: Find Me [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 4:34 PM : > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org : > Subject: Re: Lucene id generation : > : > On 12/11/06, Waheed Mohammed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > > : > > Hello, : > > : > > Is there a way to influence lucene's generation of ids : > while indexing. : > > : > > my requirement is. I want to have different indexes where no index : > > should have ids that have been assigned to an index earlier. : > > for instance : > > IDX1 : {0.........100} : > > IDX2: {101.......200} : > > IDX3: {201.......300} : > > but not : > > IDX1 : {0.........100} : > > IDX2 : {0.........100} : > > IDX3 : {0.........100} : > : > : > I dont think you should be doing that. If you want to have : > the same effect, : > during searching you can package hits from different indices with a : > predetermined offset for each index. For ex: IDX1 will have : > an offset 0, : > IDX2 will have 101...and so on. : > : > --Rajesh Munavalli : > : : : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
