Re: problem found with DiskDocValuesFormat

Thanks for the answers, and thanks for the changes to load doc values to disk, it will be nice to use a supported codec. Upgrading our indexes is not an option, as they are very large. Sean On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Sean Brid

Re: problem found with DiskDocValuesFormat

, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Sean Bridges > wrote: > > What is the recommended way to use DiskDocValuesFormat in production if > we > > can't reindex when we upgrade? > > I'm not going to recommend using any experimental codecs in production, > but...

Re: problem found with DiskDocValuesFormat

What is the recommended way to use DiskDocValuesFormat in production if we can't reindex when we upgrade? Will the 4.4 version of DDVF be backwards compatible, or should we make our own copy of DDVF and give it a different codec name to protect ourselves against incompatible changes? Thanks, Sea

Re: Pulsing40PostingsFormat in lucene 4.1

is will be tricky: > > Lucene40PulsingPF uses various codec APIs (eg BlockTreeTermsReader) > > from 4.0 as well, which will conflict with the 4.1 classes by the same > > package/name... > > > > Mike McCandless > > > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > &g

Re: Pulsing40PostingsFormat in lucene 4.1

n your classpath, so old > indices could be read. > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Sean Bridges > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We are trying to upgrade from lucene 4.0 to 4.1. Our indexes were &

Re: delete by docid in lucene 4

Thanks for the advice everyone, I'll try updateDocument() for now. Sean On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> Sean seriously a couple of hundred docs a second, don't bother just >> use updateDocument. My benchma

Re: delete by docid in lucene 4

n On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Sean Bridges wrote: >> Thanks for the tip. >> >> Does using updateDocument instead of addDocument affect >> indexing/search performance? > > it does affect index perform

Re: delete by docid in lucene 4

e > > - > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Sean Bridges [mailto:sean.brid...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:42 PM >>

Re: delete by docid in lucene 4

> -Original Message----- >> From: Sean Bridges [mailto:sean.brid...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:09 PM >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: delete by docid in lucene 4 >> >> Is it possible to delete by docId in

Re: delete by docid in lucene 4

12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Sean Bridges wrote: >> Is it possible to delete by docId in lucene 4? I can delete by docid >> in lucene 3 using IndexReader.deleteDocument(int docId), but that >> method is gone in lucene 4, and IndexWriter only allows deleting by >> Term or Query. >

delete by docid in lucene 4

Is it possible to delete by docId in lucene 4? I can delete by docid in lucene 3 using IndexReader.deleteDocument(int docId), but that method is gone in lucene 4, and IndexWriter only allows deleting by Term or Query. This is our use case - In our system, each document is identified by a unique

Re: Memory question

Another solution is to set -Xmx == -Xms, and make a native call to mlockall on application startup, this will prevent the jvm from swapping. Using JNA, calling mlockall is not very hard, you can see how cassandra does it here, https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-1.1.0/src/java/org/