Hi,
We have to update few documents in our index. We have add a additional
field to them. We did as follows
1)read the documents of our interest using IndexReader
2)copy them to a temporary doc object (temp_doc)
3)delete the document in the index
4)close the IndexReader
5)open the IndexWriter
6)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/08/2006 20:32:20:
> Heh... interfaces strike again.
>
> Well then since we *know* that no one has their own implementation
> (because they would not have been able to register it), we should be
> able to safely upgrade the interface to a class (anyone want to supply
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/08/2006 11:22:12:
> Assuming "field" wasn't being used to synchronize on something else,
> this would still block *all* IndexReaders/Searchers trying to sort on
> that field.
>
> In Solr, it would make the situation worse. If I had my warmed-up
> IndexSearcher serving
On 8/9/06, Oliver Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there's FieldCache.DEFAULT
I thought the exact same thing but what I'd forgotten was that all fields on
an interface are implicitly final.
Heh... interfaces strike again.
Well then since we *know* that no one has their own impleme
> Ah, right... I browsed your code a bit too fast. It looks fine.
Great.
> > On a related note it would be great if there was a way to plug a
> > custom FieldCache implementation into Lucene, given there is a
> > FieldCache interface it's a shame there's no way to
> actually provide
> > an
On 8/9/06, Oliver Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonik,
> most easily implemented in Java5 via Future.
I didn't use Java5 as I had a feeling that code is Lucene needs to compile
on Java1.3 right?
Lucene 2 currently requires Java 1.4
It was really just a side comment - people have imple
: I think, but am not certain (chime in here guys) that this is expected
: behavior. As I remember from various threads, internally indexing uses a
: RAMdir to accumulate data until it merges it with the FSDir. Since the
: searcher and indexer are separate, I assume that the searcher is looking at
what you want is not a customized sort as much as a customized Score ..
scores can be customized by modifying your Similarity, class -- LIA has
some good info on this, but the best way to figure out what you want may
be to start by creating your own Similarity class and then look at the
search.exp
: > You could do this with the current query parser by putting large
: > position increment gaps between paragraphs that is guaranteed to be
: > larger than the largest paragraph. Then you could use a sloppy phrase
: > query
: > "word1 word2"~1 for instance.
: Unfortunatelly this only makes s
Yonik,
> most easily implemented in Java5 via Future.
I didn't use Java5 as I had a feeling that code is Lucene needs to compile
on Java1.3 right?
> I don't think you need two maps though, right? just stick a
> placeholder in the outer map.
I'm using 2 maps mainly because it simplifies the
You can just put your documents in a queue and access the index within
one single thread?! All your analysis can take part in other threads,
If one has finished dump the Document in the queue and keep you index
writer busy, that's a good Idea anyway.
I guess you don't need an example for that don
Yes thanks Grant I realize that if I need the term freq in all the
documents I could use TermEnum, but I have a use case where
I may need term frequencies of only selected documents, and the worst
case scenario might be term freq for n-1
documents, where n is the total number of documents in
Hi Amit,
If you want all the freqs of all the terms (or even just some of the
terms) in all documents, you don't need to use Term Vectors, take a
look at TermEnum and TermDocs.
If you want for specific documents, then you do need Term Vectors.
You may get some CPU ticks by only keeping P
Hi All,
I'm a newbie to Lucene and would like to use thread instance to index my
office document I've uploaded within web application. Is Lucene can face
concurrent indexing issue ? Is there any jsp/servlet sample that can show me
how to do that ?
Regards,
Feris
Hi Lucene Users,
I am using the lucene indices to get term frequencies. I just wanted
to check with you about the
time it is taking to retrieve these term freq. Please suggest if I
can improve the code/index or if
this is expected. It takes 8 to 9 seconds to retrieve the term freq
values of
Definitely the right track Oliver... it's called a blocking map (most
easily implemented in Java5 via Future). I don't think you need two
maps though, right? just stick a placeholder in the outer map.
-Yonik
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server
On 8/9/06,
On 8/9/06, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
public StringIndex getStringIndex (IndexReader reader, String field)
throws IOException {
field = field.intern();
synchronize(field) { // < --- line added
Object ret = lookup (reader, field, STRING_INDEX, null);
if
On 8/8/06, Oliver Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The nature of the field cache itself means that the first
> sort on a particular field can take a long, long time.
> Synchronization won't really help that much.
I think you may be misunderstanding my description (probably because it was
n
I think, but am not certain (chime in here guys) that this is expected
behavior. As I remember from various threads, internally indexing uses a
RAMdir to accumulate data until it merges it with the FSDir. Since the
searcher and indexer are separate, I assume that the searcher is looking at
the sna
Well your digits might be lost during analysis like Erik said. Check
out with luke whats in your index (Field.Store.Yes) and see if your
analyzer removes the digits. SimpleAnalyzer removes them but
StandartAnalyzer keeps the digits.
regards simon
On 8/9/06, ould sid'ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Simon Willnauer a écrit :
You should rather explain what you expect from indexing your number
not as string values.
best regards simon
On 8/9/06, ould sid'ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erick Erickson a écrit :
> What analyzers are you using for both indexing and searching? Some
> analyzers
You should rather explain what you expect from indexing your number
not as string values.
best regards simon
On 8/9/06, ould sid'ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Erick Erickson a écrit :
> What analyzers are you using for both indexing and searching? Some
> analyzers
> strip out numbers and som
Erick Erickson a écrit :
What analyzers are you using for both indexing and searching? Some
analyzers
strip out numbers and some don't. I'd start with WhitespaceAnalyzer, and
index your fields UN_TOKENIZED and work up to the other analyzers and/or
tokenizations from there.
Under any circumstanc
Still worried =)
You see it doesn't update the hits.length() in a correct way when I create a
new searcher. The correct update does just occur in the merges. =/
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 9 augusti 2006 15:34
Till: java-user@luce
Then you won't see anything added to your index between times. Does this
identify your problem or are you still worried?
Erick
On 8/9/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm opening a new searcher every 3:rd minute.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL
What analyzers are you using for both indexing and searching? Some analyzers
strip out numbers and some don't. I'd start with WhitespaceAnalyzer, and
index your fields UN_TOKENIZED and work up to the other analyzers and/or
tokenizations from there.
Under any circumstances, you really, really, rea
I'm opening a new searcher every 3:rd minute.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 8 augusti 2006 18:58
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Lucene hits.length()
I'll take a stab at it When are you opening/closing your searcher
Hi,
I want to execute a query searching a few terms
QueryParser queryParser = new MultiFieldQueryParser(new String[] {"tags",
"title"}, ProcessConstants.analyzer);
Query query = queryParser.parse("rocio ortega");
and I want to obtain the results sorted by the number of founded terms, but not
c
Hello,
I don't arrive to get result from the field have a value numeric for
example "date=2005" or "title=900",
I have indexed the fields "date" with String value. I want know why?
Can you help me?
thanks.
-
To unsubscribe,
Otis, Doron, thanks for the feedback.
First up I'd just like to say that I totally agree with Doron on this - any
attempt to fix this issue needs to be done using as fine grain
synchronization as is possible or you'd just be introducing a new bottle
neck.
It terms of the level of granularity, t
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 8/8/06, Laurent Hoss wrote:
Suppose having an Index containing Lucene documents, having multiple
fields (equally) named 'paragraph'.
Now I want to make a "Field Grouping" query (described in:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.html )
"paragraph:( word1 A
Hi Otis,
I think that synchronizing the entire method would be an overkill - instead
it would be sufficient to synchronize on a "by field" object so that only
if two requests for the same "cold/missing" field are racing, one of them
would wait for the other to complete loading that field. I think
32 matches
Mail list logo
