Thanks for the quick reply!
I will go ahead with reindexing of all the data.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On 2010-07-07 14:49, Naveen Kumar wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrzej Bialecki
>>
>> When you suggested -
>> "There are some other low-level ways to do this, but the easi
On 2010-07-07 14:49, Naveen Kumar wrote:
Hi Andrzej Bialecki
When you suggested -
"There are some other low-level ways to do this, but the easiest is to
use a FilterIndexReader, especially since you just want to add a
stored
field - implement a subclass of FilterIndexReader th
Hi Andrzej Bialecki
When you suggested -
"There are some other low-level ways to do this, but the easiest is to
use a FilterIndexReader, especially since you just want to add a
stored
field - implement a subclass of FilterIndexReader that adds a new
field
in getFieldNames() a
On 2010-06-29 13:40, Naveen Kumar wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I need to add a new field (a stored , not indexed field) for all
> documents present in an existing large index. Reindexing the whole
> index will be very costly. Is there a way to do this or any work
> around?
There are some other low-level way
yes, with lucene's current API's, it does not seem possible.
But, as this is a problem that many might be facing, I was hoping someone
might have figured out a solution.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Mango wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible to add new field without
> re-ind
Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible to add new field without
re-indexing.
As for extracting content from the field, it should be possible to
retrieve data if the term vectors
were stored with positions offset
(Field.TermVector.WITH_POSITIONS_OFFSETS). If not, I don't
think it's possible.
Hey,
I need to add a new field (a stored , not indexed field) for all documents
present in an existing large index. Reindexing the whole index will be very
costly. Is there a way to do this or any work around?
I would also like to know, if data or term vector, of a field indexed
without storing,
