See below -
smokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007 05:14:23:
> Suppose I have an index containing the terms impostor,
> imposter, fraud, and
> fruad, then presumably regardless of whether I spell impostor and fraud
> correctly, Lucene SpellChecker will offer the improperly
> spelled versi
It doesn't make sense to optimize() after every document add.
Lucene in fact implements a logic in the spirit of what you
describe below, when it decides to merge segments on the fly.
There are various ways to tell Lucene how often to flush
recently added/updated documents and what to merge.
But
I didn't have performance issues when using the spell checker.
Can you describe what you tried and how long it took, so
people can relate to that.
AFAIK the spell checker in o.a.l.search.spell does not "expand
a query by adding all the permutations of potentially misspelled
word". It is based on b
I have implemented a custom version of FieldCache to handle multi-valued
fields, but this requires an interface change so it isn't applicable to
what you're suggesting. However, it would be great to have a standard
solution for handling multiple values.
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Does any out the
I have not tried this yet. I am trying to understand the best practices from
others who have experiences with SpellChecker before actually implementing
it.
If I understand it correctly, the spell check class suggests alternate but
similar words for a single input term. So I believe I will have to
My question is for anyone who has experience with Lucene's SpellChecker,
especially around its performance characteristics/ramifications.
1. Given the fact that SpellChecker expands a query by adding all the
permutations of potentially misspelled word, how does it perform in general?
2. How are o
First time I tried this I made it WAY more complex than it is
WARNING: this is from an older code base so you may have to tweak
it. Might be 1.9 code
public class WildcardTermFilter
extends Filter {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
protected BitSet
Have you actually tried this and done a query.toString() to see
how this is actually expanded? Not that I'm all that familiar
with SpellChecker, but before presuming how things work
you would get answers faster if you ran a test.
And, why do you care about performance? I know that's
a silly qu
Does any out there using Lucene implement their own version of
FieldCache.java? We are proposing to make it an abstract class, which
violates our general rule about back-compatibility (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1045)
-Grant
--
Grant Ingersoll
h
The current trunk of Lucene (unreleased 2.3-dev) has a new method on
IndexWriter: optimize(int maxNumSegments). This method should do what
you want: you tell it how many segments to optimize down to, and it
will try to pick the least cost merges to get the index to that
point. It's very new (onl
Hello,
I am very new to Lucene.I am facing one problem.
I have one very large index which is constantly getting update(add and delete)
at a regular interval.after which I am optimizing the whole index (otherwise
searches will be slow) but optimization takes time.So I was thinking to merge
only
11 matches
Mail list logo
