, it could manage its own
> dense
> > sequence numbers.
> > 3. A searcher is "sticky" to a writer, and periodically issues an S3
> > GetObject for the next metadata object's full URL (i.e. the URL using the
> > next dense sequence number). Until the next checkpoin
Hello,
Our current search solution is a pretty big monolith running on pretty
beefy EC2 instances. Every node is responsible for indexing and serving
queries. We want to start decomposing our service and are starting with
separating the indexing and query handling responsibilities.
I'm in the re
h
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 7:46 PM Navneet Verma
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on the question.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 6:35 PM Marc Davenport
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > I had this question buried in a previous email. I feel like I
Hello,
I had this question buried in a previous email. I feel like I have a very
loose grasp on the Lucene API and how to properly implement with it. I'm
working on code that I didn't write myself from the ground up. Since I'm
learning as I'm reading it, I can only assume things were done right.
> field. Not sure if that fits your use case, but it is a typical user
> interaction when searching and filtering by facets.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024, 17:29 Marc Davenport .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Stefan,
> >
> > I will look into the
It facets at match-time
> and is
> generally faster than the faceting we had before 9.12.
>
> Stefan
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/tree/main/lucene/demo/src/java/org/apache/lucene/demo/facet
> [2] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13568
>
>
> On
I've been looking at the way our code gets the facet counts from Lucene and
see if there are some obvious inefficiencies. We have about 60 normal flat
facets, some of which are multi-valued, and 5 or so hierarchical and
multi-valued facets. I'm seeing cases where the call to create a
FastTaxonomyF
ly and in the same order, then I
> > believe that you would get the same results. But we consider this an
> > implementation detail rather than a guarantee that Lucene should have.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 7:03 PM Marc Davenport
> > wrote:
> >
> > > H
Hello,
I've been working on this personalization project using KNN queries and I
have a couple questions but one is more pressing for me than the others.
1) Inconsistency between index instances:
All of the same documents are loaded into different indexes. They may be
loaded in different order, bu
ty efficient and a cache wouldn't
> likely win you very much and just lead to trouble,
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:08 PM Marc Davenport
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > Right now our implementation retrieves our UID for our records from the
> > topdocs by calling Inde
Hello,
Right now our implementation retrieves our UID for our records from the
topdocs by calling IndexSearcher.doc(docid, fieldToLoad) (Deprecated) with
the UID as the only field. I'm looking to replace this with the
appropriate call to IndexSearcher.storedFields(). This feels a little
inefficie
Hello,
I'm exploring some personalization to our sort orders. If I have an
original query q which is mostly just a set of term filters, and I want to
sort those by distance between some float vector on the document and a
supplied user vector. I only see one way to do this. I would create a new
bool
ems like you can use your own cache implementation,
> similar
> > to what you can see in tests - TestDirectoryTaxonomyWriter.java
> > or TestConcurrentFacetedIndexing.java. This would
> > allow you to plug in the previous implementation (or something even more
> > fine-tun
items and match the previous behavior.
Marc
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:39 PM Marc Davenport
wrote:
> Hello,
> Thanks for the leads. I haven't yet gone as far as doing a git bisect, but
> I have found that the big jump in time is in the call to
> facetsConfig.build(taxonomyWriter
. It'll take some time to build but it's a
> logarithmic bisection and you'd know for sure where the problem is.
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:16 PM Marc Davenport
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Adrien et al,
> > I've been doing some investigation today and it
se for this 2x regression. It would
> be interesting to look at a profile.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:32 PM Marc Davenport
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I'm finally migrating Lucene from 8.11.2 to 9.10.0 as our overall build
> can
> > now support Java 1
Hello,
I'm finally migrating Lucene from 8.11.2 to 9.10.0 as our overall build can
now support Java 11. The quick first step of renaming packages and
importing the new libraries has gone well. I'm even seeing a nice
performance bump in our average query time. I am however seeing a dramatic
increas
returned?
Thank you,
Marc Davenport
18 matches
Mail list logo
