RE: Java 9 issues

2017-07-27 Thread Uwe Schindler
Hi, small correction: > as with OSGI, there is currently no support for running Lucene in Java 9. This I mean "Java 9 module system". It works with Java 9! > requires a complete restructure of the Lucene/Solr package structure and > that's not going to happen in the next release. You should comp

RE: Java 9 issues

2017-07-27 Thread Uwe Schindler
Hallo, as with OSGI, there is currently no support for running Lucene in Java 9. This requires a complete restructure of the Lucene/Solr package structure and that's not going to happen in the next release. You should compile and run Lucene with the standard classpath where it works without any

Java 9 issues

2017-07-27 Thread Abu Abdullah
Hi, I'm trying to compile my app in java 9 where i hit an issue related to the module system of java 9. the current lucene libraries (JARs) have the same classes in multiple JARs (considered modules in java9). the error thrown is: error: module ant reads package org.apache.lucene.analysis.standar

Re: Migration to Lucene 6.5

2017-07-27 Thread Adrien Grand
DocValuesTermsQuery should not perform differently from DocValuesTermsFilter. Maybe try to run things under a profiler and see what it says? Le mar. 18 juil. 2017 à 22:48, Rilpa Jain a écrit : > Hi, > > We plan to migrate from lucene 5.5 to 6.5. We have been using > DocValuesTermsFilter extensiv

Re: Filters Vs queries - for terms more than 1024

2017-07-27 Thread Adrien Grand
BooleanQuery is subject to the 1024 limit on the number of clauses, so you can't use it in that case. You should use TermsQuery/TermsFilter instead. Le mer. 19 juil. 2017 à 13:52, Kumaran Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Hi Adrien > > > i have tried > ​ > BooleanQuery with ConstantScoreQuery based su

Re: field:* vs field:[* TO *]

2017-07-27 Thread Adrien Grand
This is going to depend on the queryparser that you are using and the field type of `field`. I agree both should be handled as efficiently. Le jeu. 20 juil. 2017 à 22:56, Hendrik Haddorp a écrit : > Hi, > > I had already asked this on the Solr mailing list but would like to > confirm this here: