@Erick: Yes I changed the default field, it is "bagofwords" now.
@Ian: Yes both indexes were optimized, and I didn't do any deletions.
version 2.4.0
I'll repeat the experiment, just be sure.
Mean while, do you have any document on Lucene fields? what I need to know
is how lucene is storing field
> ...
> I can for sure say that multiple copies are not index. But the number of
> fields in which text is divided are many. Can that be a reason?
Not for that amount of difference. You may be sure that you are not
indexing multiple copies, but I'm not. Convince me - create 2 new
indexes via the
Note that your two queries are different unless you've
changed the default operator.
Also, your bagOfWords query is searching across your
default field for the second two terms.
Your bagOfWords is really something like
bagOfWords:Alexander OR :history OR :Macedon.
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jan 21, 20
I agree with Ian that these times sound way too high. I'd
also ask whether you fire a few warmup searches at your
server before measuring the increased time, you might
just be seeing the cache being populated.
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ian Lea wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> Space: 700Mb v
Hi,
thanks for the reply.
For the document, in my last mail..
multifieldQuery:
name: Alexander AND domain: history AND first_sentence: Macedon
Single field query:
bagOfWords: Alexander history Macedon
I can for sure say that multiple copies are not index. But the number of
fields in which text
Hi
Space: 700Mb vs 4.5Gb sounds way too big a difference. Are you sure
you aren't loading multiple copies of the data or something like that?
Queries: a 20 times slowdown for a multi field query also sounds way
too big. What do the simple and multi field queries look like?
--
Ian.
On Wed,
Hi,
I've indexed around half a million XML documents. Here is the document
sample:
cogito:Name
Alexander the Great
cogito:domain
ancient history
cogito:first_sentence
Alexander the Great (Greek: or Megas Alexandros; July 20 356 BC June 10 323
BC), also known as Alexander III
