Thanks Mike for the information.
Actually I am using RemoteParallelMultiSearcher with 10 Search Servers, my
crawler program freequently add new documents in to all the Search Servers
in a distributed manner. So in this case, if I add a document in a
particular index, I need to restart the searche
Thanks Erick for the information.
Actually I am using RemoteParallelMultiSearcher with 10 Search Servers, my
crawler program freequently add new documents in to all the Search Servers
in a distributed manner. So in this case, if I add a document in a
particular index, I need to restart the search
I am creating an index of about 7 Million documents.
The total size of the index is about 2.7G once indexing is done.
For the 1st 3Million documents, the indexer takes about 3 hours (can i
get better than this? )
- 4 seconds per thousand documents
After this it slows down terribly and takes abou
Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps another comment on the same line - I think you would be able to
> get more from your system by bounding the number of open searchers to 2:
Yep, this is exactly what I've done.
> - old, serving 'old' queries, would be soon closed;
> - new, being
: getPositionIncrementGap, but there appears to no way to set non
: constant gap. say, gap between "value1" and "value2" is 10, but gap
: between "value2" and "value3" is 100.
by default, non of hte analyzers do anything special in
getPositionIncrementGap -- that's up to you to control in any s
Thanks for the advice drj. I do close the searcher and set it to null
before instantiating another searcher. I believe that I am closing the
reader and writer at the correct times as well...
-Original Message-
From: d rj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:40 A
OK, how about injecting a special token in your input stream, then having
your analyzer record that token and set the position increment of the next
"real" token? Something like
d.add("field", "veryspecialtokenincrementnext100 value1"...);
d.add("field", "veryspecialtokenincrementnext10 value2"..
one mistake in this code
should be
infos.counter = ++counter;
instead of
infos.counter = counter++;
Volodymyr Bychkoviak wrote:
I've used following code to recover index. Note: it only works with
.cfs files.
String path = // path to index
File file = new File(path);
Directory d
Thanks Oliver. It works.
Thanks,
-Kalpesh
Oliver Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kalpesh,
Are you using sorting? If you are, then the patch attached to LUCENE-651 may
help. It fixes a race condition that exists in the initialization of the
FieldCache (which is used to accelerate
Thanks Erick,
Since value1, value2, value3, itself can also include multiply tokens, I am
not sure the token based postion increment, d.add(new Field("value1 value2
value3"), will actually work. I was trying to use
getPositionIncrementGap, but there appears to no way to set non constant
Yes, but you must close and re-open your SEARCHER. There are various schemes
for doing this based upon now expensive it is to open a new searcher and how
often you need to do it, but it's not built into Lucene AFAIK. It all
depends upon how quickly you have to see the results of your update.
Also
See the SynonymFilter in LIA for how to create your very own analyzer that
gives you total control over the increment between terms. Essentially, that
allows you to set the position increment for each and every token. I suspect
that this would be easier, but what do I know?
The difference is that
I am reposting this question. Could somebody help?
qaz zaq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have multiple values want to add to the
same FIELD, and I also want to add non-zero but NON CONSTANT position increment
gap among those values. e.g., gap between "value1" and "value2" is 10, but gap
between
I would suggest checking that close() is properly called for all
IndexSearcher/Reader/Writer objects when doing adds/deletes and when
recreating IndexSearcher object.
Free memory in the JVM heap can diminish quickly if these objects aren't
properly disposed.
-drj
On 10/26/06, Aigner, Thomas < [EM
Have the following problem with (explicitly invoked) index optimization -
it seems to always merge all existing index segments into a single huge
segment, which is undesirable in my case.
Is there a way to force index optimization to honor the
IndexWriter.MAX_MERGE_DOCS setting?
Stanislav
--
Howdy all,
I have a issue with java running out of memory after the search
has been running for a while. We are using 1.9.1 release and I check
the indexreader's version to determine if I need to get a new searcher
for searches (so I pick up any changes to the index). I am seeing jumps
i
George Aroush wrote:
> From your email, I take it that even for the Java folks, they can't
> accumulate the list of files that make up 2.0.1. Am I right?
There has never been and likely will never be a 2.0.1 release.
"2.0.1", "2.1" -- these are labels for *potential* future releases.
"2.1" is m
Hi,
On the page about the file formats I think there might be a
documentation error below 'frequencies'. The example is '15, 22, 3', but
if I read the paragraph starting with 'DocDelta determines both the
document number and the frequency' correctly this example translates to:
Doc ID Freq.
Hi Otis and all,
I am nearing to a point where I will be able to port in real-time -- and
it's something I want to achieve. However, before doing so, my hope was to
first sync up Lucene.Net with 2.0.1. From your email, I take it that even
for the Java folks, they can't accumulate the list of fil
Sunil Kumar PK wrote:
could you please explain?
On 10/26/06, Karel Tejnora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nope. IndexReader obtains a snapshot of index - not closing and opening
indexreader leads to not deleting files (windows exception, linux will
not free them).
> Is it possible to get all the ma
could you please explain?
On 10/26/06, Karel Tejnora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nope. IndexReader obtains a snapshot of index - not closing and opening
indexreader leads to not deleting files (windows exception, linux will
not free them).
> Is it possible to get all the matching document in the
Nope. IndexReader obtains a snapshot of index - not closing and opening
indexreader leads to not deleting files (windows exception, linux will
not free them).
Is it possible to get all the matching document in the result without
restarting the Searcher program?
Hi,
I have a program to create a lucene index, and another program for searching
that index.
The Search program create an IndexSearcher object once in its constructor,
and I created a method doSearch to search the index. The doSearch method
uses the indexSearcher object to get the Hits.
My Inde
Hi,
I have a program to create a lucene index, and another program for searching
that index.
The Search program create an IndexSearcher object once in its constructor,
and I created a method doSearch to search the index. The doSearch method
uses the indexSearcher object to get the Hits.
My Inde
Thank you. My opinion is using the Current Similarity not
suitable,because most term freq in the address content is one,but in
the lucene, Freq is the very import factor,So I want know some other
method to short information.
-
To
25 matches
Mail list logo
