Exactly. ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel [mailto:nigelspl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:56 AM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3 > > I have a follow-up question to this thread on Field.Store.COMPRESS in > 2.9.1 > and beyond. I'm getting a bit confused between the changes in 2.9.1 and > 3.0 > so I want to make sure I know what's going on. We also use old-style > compressed fields and are about to upgrade to 2.9.1. > > Is the following accurate? > > 1) Indexes created in 2.4 with compressed fields can be read by 2.9.1. > New > docs can be added in 2.9.1 using compressed fields, if you don't mind the > deprecation warnings. Merges and optimizes done in 2.9.1 will preserve > the > compressed fields in the same format. > > 2) Indexes created in 2.x with compressed fields can be read by 3.0. New > docs cannot by added in 3.0 using compressed fields, since that > functionality has been removed (use CompressionTools instead). The first > time a merge or optimize is performed on an old-format index in 3.0, the > compressed fields will all be uncompressed (i.e. converted to the new > format). > > Did I get that right? > > Thanks, > Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
