Hi all,
Is there a way to achieve $subject? For example, consider the following SQL
query.
SELECT A, B, C SUM(D) as E FROM `table` WHERE time BETWEEN fromDate AND
toDate *GROUP BY X,Y,Z*
In the above query we can group the records by, X,Y,Z. Is there a way to
achieve the same in Lucene? (I gues
On 08/09/2015 06:29 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Hi,
My values are unique and equal to the number of documents, They have
varying sizes, say at least 10 bytes and may be a lot bigger (say 4kbytes)
I don't share, index or sort them.
I don't do grouping/faceting either
I only want to store, retri
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 9-8-2015 16:22, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> > Maybe you could update the JavaDoc for that field to warn against using it?
> It (probably) depends on the contents of the values.
That was my impression too, but we both seem to be second-guessing Robert's
very non-nuan
Hi,
> My values are unique and equal to the number of documents, They have
> varying sizes, say at least 10 bytes and may be a lot bigger (say 4kbytes)
>
> I don't share, index or sort them.
> I don't do grouping/faceting either
>
>
> I only want to store, retrieve and traverse those values
T
On 08/09/2015 04:55 PM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
On 9-8-2015 16:22, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
Robert Muir wrote:
I am tired of repeating this:
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Use types like SORTED/SORTED_SET which will compress the term
diction
If I understand it correctly, the Zoie library [1][2] implements the
"sledgehammer" approach by collecting docValues for all documents when a
segment reader is opened. If you have some RAM to throw at the problem,
this could indeed bring you an acceptable level of performance.
[1] http://senseidb.
On 9-8-2015 16:22, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> Robert Muir wrote:
>> I am tired of repeating this:
>> Don't use BINARY docvalues
>> Don't use BINARY docvalues
>> Don't use BINARY docvalues
>> Use types like SORTED/SORTED_SET which will compress the term
>> dictionary and make use of ordinals in your
Robert Muir wrote:
> I am tired of repeating this:
> Don't use BINARY docvalues
> Don't use BINARY docvalues
> Don't use BINARY docvalues
> Use types like SORTED/SORTED_SET which will compress the term
> dictionary and make use of ordinals in your application instead.
This seems contrary to
http
That makes no sense at all, it would make it slow as shit.
I am tired of repeating this:
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Don't use BINARY docvalues
Use types like SORTED/SORTED_SET which will compress the term
dictionary and make use of ordinals in your application instead.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> Does your application actually iterate in order over dense ids, or is
> it just for benchmarking purposes? Because if it does, you probably
> don't actually need seeking, you could just see what the current ID in
> the terms enum is.
Both dens
Mike
Thank you kindly for the reply. I am using Lucene v4.10.4. Are the
optimization you refer to, available in this version?
We haven't yet upgraded to Lucene 5 as there appear to be many API changes.
Jamie
On 2015/08/08 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Which version of Lucene are you us
11 matches
Mail list logo
