Thanks Uwe !
For part (1) of my query are there any smart ways ?
Arun
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > With prior warming i find that (a) & (b) take almost same time. I knew
> that
> > only when we reuse the Filter we get its benefits.
> > (c) takes around 30
Hi Guys,
I am using Lucene 4.2.
1> For my use case i am doing a search say name:xyz* and then i have a need
to do a grouping with (from query same as name:xyz* + Filter + GroupSort)
may be in same/different thread.
>From my understanding the second internal search will be faster but i have
good
Hi,
Thanks Robert ! This info is exactly what i need.
Just for getting myself clear.
If the field is a DocValue field the FieldCacheTermsFilter will use the
existing DocValues Field. For Normal Fields the filter will create a
DocValues for that field using FieldCache.
Arun
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013
Hi Guys,
I was trying to better the filtering mechanism for my use case.
When i use the existing filters like FieldCacheTermsFilter, TermsFilter i
see that the first filtering take up enough time may be for building the
FieldCache. Subsequent filters are fast enough.
Currently, I am using CachingW
inefficient for random lookup. You schould do a bibary
> search to find the right leaf. ComposuteReader and ReaderUtil have utility
> methods to do this.
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> Arun Kumar K schrieb:
> >Hi Guys,
> >
> >I am trying to get hands on Lucene 4.2 Doc Va
Hi Guys,
I am trying to get hands on Lucene 4.2 Doc Values (RAM Based Which is by
default).
I have a 1GB index with 54 documents.
When retrieving the DocVals for matched docs i am able to retrieve vals
only upto some limit around 45000 docvals only.
for (AtomicReaderContext context : reader
Adrein,
Thanks for spending time to explain me the things clearly. I have got the
things correctly now.
Thanks,
Arun
On 29-May-2013, at 2:13 AM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote:
>> Thanks for clarifying the things.
>> I have some d
i right here?
Thanks,
Arun
On 28-May-2013, at 8:31 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>
> Hi,
>
>> I have been trying to understand DocValues and get some hands on and have
>> observed few things.
&g
Hi Guys,
I have been trying to understand DocValues and get some hands on and have
observed few things.
I have added LongDocValuesField to the documents like:
doc.add(new LongDocValuesField("id",1));
1> In 4.0 i saw that there are two versions for docvalues,
RAM Resident(using Sources.getSO
gt; -
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Arun Kumar K [mailto:arunk...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:41 PM
> > To: java-
Hi Guys,
I am using following queries:
1>WildCardQuery
2>BooleanQuery having a WildCardQuery and TermQuery.
WildCardQuery is field:* or say field:ab*
>From Lucene FAQs and earlier discussions about TooManyClausesException i
see that WildCardQuery gets expanded before doing search.
For that i was
ram you are setting on the
> index writer config?
>
> also how many threads are you using for indexing?
>
> simon
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote:
> > Hi Adrien,
> >
> > I have seen memory usage using linux command top for RES memory &
M, Adrien Grand wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I have been finding out the heap space requirement for indexing and
> > searching with 3.0.2 vs 4.1 (with BlockPostings Format).
> >
> > I have a 2GB inde
Hi Guys,
I have been finding out the heap space requirement for indexing and
searching with 3.0.2 vs 4.1 (with BlockPostings Format).
I have a 2GB index with 1 million docs with around 42 fields with 40 fields
being random strings.
I have seen that memory for search has reduced by 5X with 4.1 (w
ngeQuery(20130101, 20130131)? Another approach for improving
> prefix queries is indexing additional terms: If you are always searching
> for a 2-char prefix for "ab*", then simply index an additional term in a
> separate field with 2 chars (e.g., "ab") in your documents
dler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arun Kumar K [mailto:arunk...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:38 AM
> > To: java-user
> > Subject: Wi
Hi Guys,
I have been testing the search time improvement in Lucene 4.0 from Lucene
3.0.2 version for Wildcard Queries (with atleast say 2 chars Eg.ar*).
For a 2GB size index with 400 docs, the following observations were
made:
Around 3X improvement with and without STRING sort on a sortable
17 matches
Mail list logo
