> Lucene started out at an avg 3ms but subsequent runs took it down
> dramatically due to OS file caching. The all-in-memory hashset implementation
> clearly did not demonstrate the same speed ups between runs.
I don't say the benchmark was wrong or anything, but this is
surprising. I mean, the
> Avg lookup time slightly less than a HashSet? Interesting.
Yep, HashSet comparison was a surprise to me too. I threw it in as a datapoint
for what I thought would be the fastest option on the example dataset but
clearly not a long-term answer to my problem as it costs so much in RAM.
Lucene s
Avg lookup time slightly less than a HashSet? Interesting. Is the code
to these benchmarks available somewhere?
Dawid
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:26 AM, mark harwood wrote:
>
using Lucene that don't fit under the core premise of full te
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:26 AM, mark harwood wrote:
>>> using Lucene that don't fit under the core premise of full text search
>
> I've had several use cases over the years that use features peculiar to
> Lucene but here's a very simple one I came across today that illustrates its
> raw index l
Hi,
Additionally, since the latest 3.x version (not sure if its already in 3.4),
there is a new searchAfter method in IndexSearcher that allows deep paging. As
MultiSearcher is deprecated, it is not supported there, so use MultiReader with
IndexSearcher.
Uwe
--
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee
Hi,
MultiReader is the way to go. MultiSearcher is broken and therefore deprecated.
See javadocs since Lucene 3.1.
Uwe
--
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
Alexander Devine schrieb:
Hi all,
I'm an trying to provide a way to efficiently allow a client t
Hi all,
I'm an trying to provide a way to efficiently allow a client to page over
all of the documents in multiple Lucene indexes that I'm querying with a
MultiSearcher (~1-2 million docs). Unfortunately, I can't use the standard
paging algorithm of getting TopDocs to the last record needed and th
At the group where I worked at UVa once upon a time, a coworker built Juxta,
this way cool tool to diff multiple versions of a document visually with heat
maps and "difference"-o-meters, and it leverages Lucene analyzers to extract
words and positions and such.
You can find it here: http://www.
>>using Lucene that don't fit under the core premise of full text search
I've had several use cases over the years that use features peculiar to Lucene
but here's a very simple one I came across today that illustrates its raw index
lookup capability:
I needed a fast, scalable and persistent "S
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:18 PM, sol myr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please ask another question regarding Lucene "under the hood" /
> performance.
>
> I wondered how "AND" queries are implemented?
> Say we query for "+hello +world".
> Would Lucene simply find 2 lists of documents ("documents contai
Hi,
Could I please ask another question regarding Lucene "under the hood" /
performance.
I wondered how "AND" queries are implemented?
Say we query for "+hello +world".
Would Lucene simply find 2 lists of documents ("documents containing HELLO",
and "documents containing WORLD"),
and then in
Thanks, this is helpful. Is the affect ( in ranking ) gonna be the
same as passing multiple terms ? I will try it out definitely.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Rene Hackl-Sommer wrote:
> Use term boosts? "solr^3 rocks^2 apache"
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html#Bo
Use term boosts? "solr^3 rocks^2 apache"
http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html#Boosting%20a%20Term
Am 25.10.2011 11:19, schrieb prasenjit mukherjee:
During search time I get the following input ( only for 1 field ) =
"solr:3 rocks:2 apache:1" . For this I have to create the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Simon Willnauer
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM, prasenjit mukherjee
> wrote:
>> Thats exactly I was trying to avoid :(
>>
>> I can afford to do that during indexing time, but it will be
>> time-consuming to do that at search time.
>
> hu? I don't underst
What classes miss? check you jre settings.
2011-10-25
janwen | China
website : http://www.qianpin.com/
From:Daniel Quach
Date:2011-10-25 12:09
Subject:setting up lucene for use on mac OSX
To:java-user
Cc:
Hi all,
I am unable to get the lucene demo to run on my macbook pro. I
downloade
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM, prasenjit mukherjee
wrote:
> Thats exactly I was trying to avoid :(
>
> I can afford to do that during indexing time, but it will be
> time-consuming to do that at search time.
hu? I don't understand, if you provide the terms at indexing time
lucene keeps track of
Moin Uwe,
vielen Dank für den Hinweis.
Beste Grüße aus Bremen, nach Bremen - Ruben
-Original Message-
From: Uwe Schindler
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:56:53 +0200
To:
Subject: RE: SIGSEGV in JCCEnv::setClassPath
>Hi Ruben,
>
>This mailing list is about Lucene Core (Java), whic
17 matches
Mail list logo
