Hi Mike,
Unfortunately you will have to delete the old doc, then reindex a new
doc, in order to change any payloads in the document's Tokens.
This issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1231
which is still in progress, could make updating stored (but not indexed)
fields a m
: My understanding is that an optimized index gives the best search
there is an inherent inconsistency in your question -- yo usay you
optimize your index before using it becuase you heard thta makes searches
faster, but in your orriginal question you said...
> I'd like to shorten the time it
I'll run some tests. Thank you.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:12:28 -0400
>
> What version of Lucene are you using? What is your current
> mergeFactor? Lowering this (minimum is 2) will result in
A possible open source solution using a page based database would be to
store the documents in http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/ which offers BTree,
Hash, and raw page based access. One would use a primary key type of
persistent ID to lookup the document data from JDBM.
Would be a good Lucene project
Hi John:
Did you test/know Lucene Domain Index for Oracle database?
http://marceloochoa.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-lucene-inside-your-oracle-jvm.html
If you are using Oracle 10g/11g is completed integrated in Oracle
memory space like Oracle Text but based in Lucene.
No network round trip i
You're welcome! I'm glad it saved you future problems.
Mike
Chris Lu wrote:
Thanks!!! This would really save us a lot of efforts!
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application
site: http://www.dbsight.net
demo: http://search.dbsight.c
I thought of one more thing you should be aware of. The
the default field length for any field (no matter which of the
two forms you use) is 10,000 tokens.
This can be easily changed, see
IndexWriter.setMaxFieldLength().
Best
Erick
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM, starz10de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Thanks!!! This would really save us a lot of efforts!
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application
site: http://www.dbsight.net
demo: http://search.dbsight.com
Lucene Database Search in 3 minutes:
http://wiki.dbsight.com/index.php?title=Creat
FYI -- there is a nasty bug that affects Lucene in Sun's 1.6 hotspot
compiler, starting with 1.6.0_04. At least 3 known cases have been
seen on this list.
Details are here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1282
The bug causes silent index corruption during merging, such that the
Hi All,
Thanks for all of the feedback. Largely as a result of the responses I've
received from the mailing list, Lucene has made it's way on to our short
list of possible solutions. I'm not sure what the timeframe is for
implementing a prototype and testing it, but I will try to report back wit
Hi René,
Since you're constructing the filter from a WildcardQuery or a PrefixQuery,
both of which use a BooleanQuery to hold a TermQuery for each matching index
term, you'll need to increase the number of clauses a BooleanQuery is allowed
to hold, by calling static method BooleanQuery.setMaxCl
What version of Lucene are you using? What is your current
mergeFactor? Lowering this (minimum is 2) will result in an index
that is closer to "optimal" since an optimized index is just one that
has all the segments merged into a single segment and a mergeFactor of
2 just means there are
If I was you I'd certainly try cutting the optimize frequency. An
optimized index should indeed give the best search performance, but in
my experience it's generally plenty fast enough anyway, and I think
you said earlier that you were prepared to sacrifice a bit of search
or indexing speed.
Sorr
As an aside, I would like to understand how do you get away without adding
documents to the active index. As far as I understand, you are only adding docs
to the inactive index and swap it with the active index (so the active one
becomes inactive and vice-versa). So do you bring the "new" inacti
My understanding is that an optimized index gives the best search performance.
I can change my configuration to optimize the index every 24 hours. However, I
still would like to know if there is a way to speed up optimization by tweaking
parameters like the merge factor.
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2
OK, but why do you need to optimize before every swap? Have you tried
with less frequent optimizes?
--
Ian.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Dragon Fly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have two copies (active/inactive) of the index. Searches are executed
> against the "active" index and new doc
I have two copies (active/inactive) of the index. Searches are executed
against the "active" index and new documents get added to the "inactive" copy.
The two indexes get swapped every 4 hours (so that new documents are visible to
the end user). Optimization is done before the inactive copy i
Why do you run an optimize every 4 hours?
--
Ian.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dragon Fly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly so please let me try it again. I'm
> happy with the search/indexing performance. However, my index gets fully
> optimized every
Dear fellow Lucene/Java developers:
I have an index created from an XML file which I am trying to search using
the MultiFieldQueryParser. At present, I am using the QueryParser to
successfully return results that are highlighted. The code is listed here:
public List search(File indexDir, Strin
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly so please let me try it again. I'm
happy with the search/indexing performance. However, my index gets fully
optimized every 4 hours and the time it takes to fully optimize the index is
longer than I like. Is there anything that I can do to speed up the
Unfortunately you will have to delete the old doc, then reindex a new
doc, in order to change any payloads in the document's Tokens.
This issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1231
which is still in progress, could make updating stored (but not
indexed) fields a much low
Is there anyone out there that actually implements their own Fieldable
instance? Just curious, as we are thinking of making some changes to
it, but it would (very slightly) break our fairly strict back-
compatibility rules (http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BackwardsCompatibility
) so I wou
I seem to recall some discussion about updating a payload, but I can't find it.
I was wondering if it were possible to use a payload to implement 'modify' of a
Lucene document. For example, I have an ID field, which has a unique ID
refering to an external DB. For example, I would like to stor
Do you have the exception Luke produced? That'd be a good clue as to
what CheckIndex is not detecting. It's hard for me to tell from that
GDB trace exactly what's gone wrong...
When you first ran CheckIndex, and it detected one corrupt segment,
what exception did it report as the cause
Hi,
I already posted this question on the CLucene dev list but it was
suggested that I may be able to get some help on the Java list so here goes.
We use Clucene 0.9.20 in our search engine. One of the indexes appears to
have become corrupt (still investigating the cause of the corruption).
Hi,
when I use the PrefixQuery instead of the WildcardQuery, I still get the
exception.
Regards
--René
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:03:28 +0530
> Von: "Ganesh - yahoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: too many clause exce
Hi,
Try using PrefixQuery? Is it still throws exception?
Regards
Ganesh
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: too many clause exception when using a filter
Hello,
I've filled an index with 1100 text files with the names
Hello,
I've filled an index with 1100 text files with the names "monisys1" to
"monisys1100".
If I start a WildcardQuery
WildcardQuery query = new WildcardQuery(new Term("fileId","monisys*"));
Hits hits = searcher.search(query);
I get a "Too many clauses" exception, like I expecte
28 matches
Mail list logo
