Mike wrote:
Were there any other errors leading up to this? For example, when you
move your index after it's built, is this actually a copy (and maybe
the disk filled up when copying)? Or a previous [initial] exception
when building the index?
Are you really sure only one writer is building th
Bhavin Pandya wrote:
My guess is ..."One of my index is got corrupted so whenever I am trying
to search the index or optimize the index or merging the multiple index
...It will throws same exception but from different class...sometime
from IndexReader or sometime from IndexWriter depends on how
Ignore that last question. I see that you said prefix wildcard query and
not wildcard query. A quick look at the code seems to show it grabbing a
prefix as well.
Do you think one would be any faster than the other? Should I used
Wildcardqueries outside of spanqueries and the regexquery inside
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
* An implementation tying Java's built-in java.util.regex to RegexQuery.
*
* Note that because this implementation currently only returns null from
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] #prefix} that queries using this implementation will
enume
Stanislav Jordanov wrote:
For a moment I wondered what exactly do you mean by "compound file"?
Then I read http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/fileformats.html and got
the idea.
I do not have access to that specific machine that all this is happening
at.
It is a 80x86 machine running Win 2003
On Aug 30, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
* An implementation tying Java's built-in java.util.regex to
RegexQuery.
*
* Note that because this implementation currently only returns null
from
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] #prefix} that queries using this implementation will
enumerate and
* attem
No..index is local.
-Original Message-
From: karl wettin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:19 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene maxing CPU on Solaris 10
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 01:13 +0200, karl wettin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 11:00 -
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 01:13 +0200, karl wettin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 11:00 -0700, Salman Shahid wrote:
> >
> > Oddly this only happens on our production Solaris 10 boxes, with JDK
> > 1.5. The load test passes with flying colors on a Windows XP box, even
> > for 50+ concurrent access.
>
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 11:00 -0700, Salman Shahid wrote:
>
> Oddly this only happens on our production Solaris 10 boxes, with JDK
> 1.5. The load test passes with flying colors on a Windows XP box, even
> for 50+ concurrent access.
This will not help you, but I've got a Solaris 10 box on ADM64 an
* An implementation tying Java's built-in java.util.regex to RegexQuery.
*
* Note that because this implementation currently only returns null from
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] #prefix} that queries using this implementation will
enumerate and
* attempt to [EMAIL PROTECTED] #match} each term for the speci
: I don't know what is the best way:
that depends on your needs ... if Selling rate changes very infrequently,
or if you are dealing with teh sell rate for lots of books per
query then i'd put it in your index ... if it's constantly in flux and you
only care about the sell rate of one or two book
Is there a large list of words and their frequency in the english
language? Obviously it would differ by corpus but I would like to see
what's already available.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comman
Folks,
Recently we are observing an issue with one of our web applications
(using Lucene 1.4) maxing out on CPU under concurrent access of ~20
users doing a lucene query. At this point web application fails to serve
any more pages and thread dump shows all lucene threads "waiting for
monitor
Folks,
We had an issue recently in which one of our web application using
Lucene 1.4-final started to max out CPU under heavy load with ~20
concurrent users during testing. Web application was not able to serve
any more pages after this and we could see all lucene threads "wating
for monitor" i
Thanks Erick, it looks like we'll have to recreate from the sources ...
Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This just in from the thread
"*Re-created fields consistently indexed"
*Erik Hatcher replied as below, and believe me, Erik knows waay more
about this than I do .
On Aug 30
This just in from the thread "*Re-created fields consistently indexed"
*Erik Hatcher replied as below, and believe me, Erik knows waay more
about this than I do .
On Aug 30, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Jason Polites wrote:
I understand that it is possible to "re-create" fields which are
indexed
Well, assuming you can get all the information you need out of your index,
you really only have two choices that I see.
1> iterate through your documents and delete and re-add each document to
that same index.
2> iterate through your documents and add the doc to a *new* index, then
replace your ol
On Aug 30, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Jason Polites wrote:
I understand that it is possible to "re-create" fields which are
indexed but
not stored (as is done by Luke), and that this is a lossy process,
however I
am wondering whether the indexed version of this remains consistent.
That is, if I re-
I'm happy to announce the first BETA of MUTIS (mutis.sourceforge.net). I
include a small demo on searching txt files (this kind of demo is like a
must ;) ).
I'm looking for more developers to archieve:
1- Plataform independence. Mutis run only under .NET, and I want it to run
under native Win32/
Stanislav Jordanov wrote:
After all, the Lucene's CFS format is abstraction over the OS's native
FS and the App should not be trying to open a native FS file named *.fnm
when it is supposed to open the corresponding *.cfs file and "manually"
extract the *.fnm file from it.
Right?
Yes, good c
Hi all,
I understand that it is possible to "re-create" fields which are indexed but
not stored (as is done by Luke), and that this is a lossy process, however I
am wondering whether the indexed version of this remains consistent.
That is, if I re-create a non-stored field, then re-index this fi
I missed something that may be very important:
I find it really strange, that the exception log reads:
java.io.FileNotFoundException: F:\Indexes\index1\_16f6.fnm (The system
cannot find the file specified)
at java.io.RandomAccessFile.open(Native
Method)
Michael McCandless wrote:
/This means the segments files is referencing a segment named _1j8s and
in trying to load that segment, the first thing Lucene does is load the
"field infos" (_1j8s.fnm). It tries to do so from a compound file (if
you have it turned on & it exists), else from the fi
Hi Mike,
Here is the full stack trace of error which I got at search time
java.io.IOException: read past EOF
at org.apache.lucene.store.FSIndexInput.readInternal FSDirectory.java:451)
at
org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.readBytes(BufferedIndexInput.java:45)
at
org.apache.lucene.
If IndexWriter.getMaxMergeDocs() always returns M
then which one is true:
1) No segment file will ever contain > M documents;
2) Any segment that participates in a merge contains <= M documents (but
the resulting segment of the merge may contain > M documents)
Obviously (1) implies (2) but my g
Yes, that is exactly what I want to do !
My external system gives me sell rate/Top N Selling books matching the user
terms (query)
I don't know what is the best way:
Storing sell rate into lucene Fields of the documents... (multiple
combination) and sort by this field,
or doing something like
Bhavin Pandya wrote:
I am running lucene 1.9 on unix machine...updating my index very frequentlyafter few
updation it says "read past eof"
I know this exception generally comes when one of the index got corrupted...but
i dont know why it got corrupted ?
may be mine code problem but i am
Hi,
Can anyone have any idea that what are the reason to lucene index got corrupted
?
I am running lucene 1.9 on unix machine...updating my index very
frequentlyafter few updation it says "read past eof"
I know this exception generally comes when one of the index got corrupted...but
i don
28 matches
Mail list logo
