It is generally unnecessary to use forceMerge, that's a legacy from
older versions of Lucene/Solr.
Especially if the index is constantly changing, forceMerge generally
is both expensive and not
very useful.
These indexes must be huge though if any of them are taking 8 hours.
What's the background
GreetingsNow, i'm using lucene , the version is 4.10.3. For some reason, i
called forceMerge(1) in the end,and the final space of the Index Library is 15
GB. . But i found that forceMerge(1) cost a lot of time, and on different
machines ,the time differs. Is this caused by the different size o
I found the problem here. I had changed some method params and was
inadvertently creating the fields I was having issues with as StringFields,
which the analyzer fails silently against.
From: , Scott Bauer mailto:bauer.sc...@mayo.edu>>
Date: Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM
To: "java-user@luce
You can write a custom (facet) collector to do this. I have done something
similar, I'll describe my approach:
For all the values that need grouping or aggregating, I have added a
FacetField ( an AssociatedFacetField, so I can store the value alongside
the ordinal) . The main search stays the same
Lucene has a grouping module that has several approaches for grouping
search hits, though it's only by a single field I believe.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gimantha Bandara wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to achieve $subject? For example,
OK, indeed, that version has the changes I was thinking of,
specifically optimizing the case when only a single doc contains a
term by inlining that docID into the terms dict.
You should be able to improve on TermsFilter a bit because you know
only 1 doc matches each ID, so after the first segment
