Re: DV limited to 32766 ?

Check out the discussion on: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4583 "StraightBytesDocValuesField fails if bytes > 32k" -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Nicolas Guyot Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:57 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: DV limited to 327

DV limited to 32766 ?

Hi, when writing a large binaryDocValue, BinaryDocValuesWriter throws an exception saying DocValuesField "fieldName" is too large, must be <= 32766 Is there a way to avoid that limit? Thanks, Nicolas

Re: Query

Sorry, hit send by accident previously. Anyway, I wanted to make sure my interpretation of this query was correct: +(((content:electro) (content:hydraulic) (content:power) (content:assist) (content:steer))~5) This is staying that all words: electro, hydraulic, power, assist and steer in the conte

Query

+( ((content:electro) (content:hydraulic) (content:power) (content:assist) (content:steer))~5)) -- Brendan Grainger www.kuripai.com

Re: lucene and ejb applications

On 08/09/2013 12:31 PM, John C wrote: > can I have an advice to write an EJB app that R/W on Lucene's Indexs? You probably need Hibernate search. Checkout: http://www.hibernate.org/subprojects/search.html & http://www.amazon.com/Hibernate-Search-Action-Emmanuel-Bernard/dp/1933988649 Hibernate sear

RE: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in indexing than lucene 3.6?

Hi Mike, Thanks very much for your insightful comments, I will try to test more. Best regards, Lisheng -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:46 AM To: Lucene Users Subject: Re: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in

Re: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in indexing than lucene 3.6?

Hi, sorry, I don't have enough time to drill deeper here (run your benchmark), but some quick ideas: Only 8 documents is really a tiny index; try testing on many more documents? Also, I would run more rounds than just 2; better to run 10s of rounds and watch for the time per round to "stabilize"

RE: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in indexing than lucene 3.6?

Hi Mike, Any more comments on this issue? Thanks and best regards, Lisheng -Original Message- From: Zhang, Lisheng [mailto:lisheng.zh...@broadvision.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 7:55 AM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: lucene 4.3 seems to be much slower in indexing than

Re: lucene and ejb applications

What kind of application are you trying to write? On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:31 AM, John C wrote: > Hi, > > can I have an advice to write an EJB app that R/W on Lucene's Indexs? > Please. > > Thank you >

Re: Lucene 4.3.1 CheckIndex limitation 100 trillion tokens?

Thanks for testing/confirmation! On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Tom Burton-West wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for the fix. Checkindex finished within 24 hours, which is not > terrible, given the size of this index (about a terabyte).. > > Tom > > Opening index @ /htsolr/lss-dev/solrs/4.2/3/co

Re: Lucene 4.3.1 CheckIndex limitation 100 trillion tokens?

Hi Robert, Thanks for the fix. Checkindex finished within 24 hours, which is not terrible, given the size of this index (about a terabyte).. Tom Opening index @ /htsolr/lss-dev/solrs/4.2/3/core/data/index Segments file=segments_e numSegments=2 version=4.2.1 format= userData={commitTimeMSec=137

Re: lucene and ejb applications

Hi, can I have an advice to write an EJB app that R/W on Lucene's Indexs? Please. Thank you

Re: WeakIdentityMap high memory usage

Yes, definitely. Our typical setup is 16Gb physical RAM and -Xmx4G per node (index size is about 1-1.5Gb per node). So there is plenty of room for OS cache, I guess. I'll take a closer look at the number of major page faults, but at the moment iostat says that everything is pretty fine. On the