In Term object, there are variables "field" and "text".
My question is, why variable "text" can not be intern() ?
Wouldn't it save some memory, especially in the FieldCache?
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application
site: http://www.dbsig
On Thursday 08 November 2007 02:41:50 Lukasz Rzeszotarski wrote:
> I must write application, where client wants to make very complex query,
> like:
> find word "blabla" in (Content_1 OR Content_2) AND (...) AND (...)...
> and as a result he expectes not only documents, but also information in
thank you very much for the answer..
actually i am trying to make a project in which i have to rerank the lucene
results.for that i have to retrieve the results from the results page
store them into a database and then after some manupulation to the pages ,
again i have to display the pages in
Very confused of your requirements.
Do you mean to search on Lucene and store the results in database? Sounds
you can do it easily via a JDBC call, and not really related to Lucene.
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application
site: http://w
i want to retrieve lucene search results from the web page and want to put
them into oracle database through JDBC, and after some manipulation want to
display results again after fetching it from database. please help me
regarding this...like from where i have to start with... and what exactly i
n
Term Vectors (specifically TermFreqVector) in Lucene are a storage
mechanism for convenience and applications to use. They are not an
integral part of the scoring in the way you may be thinking of them in
terms of the traditional Vector Space Model, thus there may be some
confusion from th
Then if I want to use another scoring formula I must to implement my
own Query/Weigh/Scorer ? For example instead of cousine distance
leiderbage distance or .. another. I'm studying Query/Weigh/Scorer
classes to find out how to do that but there is not much documentation
about that.
I have seen I
Hello. Let assume I have a Document which has two fields: Content_1 and
Content_2.
I am making query to find word "blabla" in the Content_1 OR Content_2.
But as a result I receive Hits collection without knowledge in which
Content_X, the word was founded.
Is it possible to receive Hits collection w
"Nikolay Diakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope we do not get lock starvation or anything in these cases. Do
> these lock have any fairness integrated in them?
Unfortunately, none of the builtin lock factories in Lucene have
fairness: they always just retry once per second (by default). T
Seems pretty desirable to me. Unless you where *really* counting on
that lock obtain timing out after how ever many years of being denied
.
On Nov 7, 2007 9:06 AM, Nikolay Diakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, yes, I never said it does not work ;-). I wrote that we get a
> negative number there
Ok, to make thing simpler, our application cannot tolerate timeouts, so
the following business case becomes desirable:
"I'd like mandatory locks - ones that either block or lock the resource."
One way to do this requires passing of a very large value that seems
infinite to a normal business us
There are a few places in Lucene (prob in a lot of other code as well)
where you should not use Long.MAX_VALUE.
Don't use it as the number of docs to return in a TopDocsCollector
either. If the code that takes that long even just adds 1 to the
variable...your screwed with a huge negative number.
I agree to an extent. You could argue for checks like this in a lot of
places though. It seems to protect an odd use case here. Normally your
timeout would not be anywhere near Long.MAX_VALUE. I would argue there
should be a better way to set "never timeout" than by using a huge
number. In either c
I hope we do not get lock starvation or anything in these cases. Do
these lock have any fairness integrated in them?
--Nikolay
Mark Miller wrote:
H...it seems to me that making locks that never time out would be
hiding a real problem that you could be having. It should never take
anywhere
Ok, some more info then - one of our tests ran on a machine with not so
many resources. The system started swapping a lot and the file system
slowed down its response to many operations. As one effect - locks
started timing out. We like to have these machines around since slow
machines tend to
In Lucene 2.x, in method Lock#obtain(long lockWaitTimeout) I see the
following line:
int maxSleepCount = (int)(lockWaitTimeout / LOCK_POLL_INTERVAL);
Since I wanted to set the lock timeout to the largest possible, I called
the IndexWriter#setDefaultWriteLockTimeout(Long.MAX_VALUE). This
produ
H...it seems to me that making locks that never time out would be
hiding a real problem that you could be having. It should never take
anywhere near that long to get a lock, and if it does, something very
serious is wrong and very unlikely to fix itself. I don't think this
lock is even of any v
Yes, yes, I never said it does not work ;-). I wrote that we get a
negative number there, doubting it desired behavior.
--Nikolay
Mark Miller wrote:
By the way...it looks like to me like you still get the behavior you
wanted. Getting the lock effectively never times out, correct?
On Nov 7, 20
By the way...it looks like to me like you still get the behavior you
wanted. Getting the lock effectively never times out, correct?
On Nov 7, 2007 8:54 AM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to an extent. You could argue for checks like this in a lot of
> places though. It seems to p
Thanks, I understand.
Nevertheless, a proper check for > Integer.MAX_VALUE won't hurt and will
make the function tolerate the whole range of its parameter values.
Cheers,
Nikolay
Mark Miller wrote:
There are a few places in Lucene (prob in a lot of other code as well)
where you should not
20 matches
Mail list logo
