Is there a way to determine whether or not an index that was left locked
due to some improper system shutdown needs repair?
My code does the following as part of starting up and creating an
IndexWriter for an existing index that was created in a prior session:
> if (IndexReader.isLocked(i
- Original Message -
*From:* Miles Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org
*Sent:* 12/14/2005 12:43:04 AM
*Subject:* DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser and DisjunctionMaxQuery
>On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>
>>As i mentioned in the comme
Mike Baranczak wrote:
I substituted DistributedMultiFieldQueryParser for
MultiFieldQueryParser, leaving everything else the same, and now it
works. Thanks for your help.
Any chance that these classes, or something like them, will be
included in the main distribution at some point?
There was a p
Mike Baranczak wrote:
I'm building a search engine that searches multiple document fields by
default. Given a query string like "Bruce Lee", I would expect the
results list to first show the documents containing both "Bruce" and
"Lee", and then the documents which only contain one of those names
Monsur Hossain wrote:
Just tried this on my linux laptop - with IndexSearcher uncommented, I
still get a single .cfs file.
Hmmm, rereading this, I'm curious to know how/why this works in Linux.
Consider this scenario:
1) Create a new index
2) Create a new IndexSearcher pointing to that index.
Monsur Hossain wrote:
"The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another
process."
It then sticks the filename in Lucene's "deletable" file to be deleted at
some later time. As a sanity check I used Process Explorer to delete the
file handle before running the incremental in
Monsur Hossain writes (4/28/2005 4:44 PM):
Hi there. Thanks for the input. I just pulled together a quick set of .NET
console apps to test this out. I have an app that indexes and an app that
holds an open searcher. Sure enough, after each incremental index/searcher
refresh, I can't delete the
Monsur Hossain writes (4/28/2005 3:10 PM):
Hi all. I'm running Lucene.NET in a Windows/ASP.NET environment. We are
searching a 300meg index in a web environment, where the IndexSearcher is
cached. Every 10-30 minutes, a separate process updates the index. When
ASP.NET's cache detects a changed
Robichaud, Jean-Philippe wrote:
Probably the simplest/ideal schema of the ScoreObject would be something
like a hashtable with Term being the keys and a TermScoreObject the value.
The TermScoreObject would be filled at search time (if asked) and would
contain all values used in the calculation of t
Pablo Gomes Ludermir wrote:
Hi all,
I have indexed a field that describes the "category" of the document.
Thus, I want to know how many categories have a specific term. Could
someone help me to get this with good performance?
If you want a complete count of all documents in the index for each
c
fsWriter = new IndexWriter(fsDir, new StandardAnalyzer(),
false);
fsWriter.mergeFactor = 100;
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
I'm at the final stages of deploying this module. Any suggestions / ideas
will be helpful in completing
Omar Didi writes (4/20/2005 5:05 PM):
Hi guys,
If a field is indexed as UnStored how can I get it value?
I tried document.get("UnStored_field") it returns null.
You didn't store it, so it's not there. If the field happens to be a
single Term, you might be able to find it in the index, expensiv
Mike Baranczak wrote:
First of all, a big thanks to all the Lucene hackers - I've only been
using your product for a couple of weeks, and I've been very impressed
by what I've seen.
Here's my question: I have an index with a little over 3 million
documents in it, with more on the way. Each docu
Mufaddal Khumri writes (4/6/2005 11:21 PM):
Hi,
Am new to Lucene. I found the following page:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.html. At the bottom
of the page there is a section that in order to escape special
characters one would use "\".
I have an Indexer that indexes produc
Erik Hatcher writes (4/5/2005 5:57 PM):
I have a need to implement wildcarded phrase queries, such as this:
"apach? luc*"
which would match "apache lucene", for example. This needs to also
support ordered and unordered proximity like SpanNearQuery does:
"apach? luc*"~10
I presume I'm goi
Goel, Nikhil writes (4/4/2005 7:14 PM):
Hi,
I have been using lucene-1.3.jar for quite some time and we are using another library to store the index in DB.
When we started indexing the writer.optimize used to take in the range of 600-800 milliseconds to return but now our index has grown t
Bill Janssen writes (4/4/2005 6:38 PM):
Hi, Otis.
Yes, I looked at Chuck's messages on the mailing list. But he seems
to be focussing on MultiSearcher approaches, where I'm looking for a
way (I think) to adjust each individual index so that it will give
scores similar to the others. I don't quite
I'm preparing to help a company run a scalability test and decide
whether or not to use Lucene. Relevant particulars for the test include:
1. 2 pairs of indices. Each pair has 1 index with about 7.5 million
small documents and 1 index with about 1 million large documents. Each
index has a s
Otis Gospodnetic writes (3/28/2005 7:34 AM):
iff = if and only if. Not a typo, but it may be redundant.
Definitely not a typo, but also definitely redundant since the integers
are partitioned into before-zero, zero and after-zero.
However, nobody seems to have noticed the other change below.
Doug Cutting writes (3/22/2005 10:05 AM):
Chuck Williams wrote:
If there is going to be any generalization to built-in sorting
representations, I'd like to suggest two things be included:
1. Fix issue 34028 (delete the one word "final")
Done.
Thank you!
2. Include a provision
John Patterson writes (3/22/2005 12:56 AM):
It would be great if this could be incorporated into Lucene as it will make
numeric searches much more efficient. I will soon need to store simple
geographical data in my index to do a "find the nearest x" type of search.
I just added "find the neares
: One annoyance I have run across is the impedance mismatch between
: range queries and sorting.
:
: If your terms are indexed as standard numbers, then integer sorting
: is fast, but range queries don't work (for negative values). If you
: format the terms such that range queries work for any i
Nice write-up in today's Search Day on Lucene in Action!
If you don't get it, you can see it here (currently the top article):
http://searchenginewatch.com/
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comman
23 matches
Mail list logo
