12:19 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Compressing field content with Lucene 3.0
10x Uwe,
That is fine :)
Cheers,
Ivan
Uwe Schindler wrote:
It is still open to you how you handle it. On my projects I normally
only
store string fields. If I compress them, they
gt; >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ivan Vasilev [mailto:ivasi...@sirma.bg]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:50 AM
> >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Compressing field content with Lucene 3.0
> >>
> >> 10x
i.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Ivan Vasilev [mailto:ivasi...@sirma.bg]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:50 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Compressing field content with Lucene 3.0
10x Uwe for your answer,
It is good news that data compr
> From: Ivan Vasilev [mailto:ivasi...@sirma.bg]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:50 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compressing field content with Lucene 3.0
>
> 10x Uwe for your answer,
>
> It is good news that data compressed with Field.Store.
10x Uwe for your answer,
It is good news that data compressed with Field.Store.COMPRESS with 2.4
will be retrieved properly from 3.0.
From your answer I understand that in 3.0 there is no API way to
compress some of the values of some field and not to compress other
values for the same field
If it is a 2.4 index, you can read it without any problems. It is only no
longer possible to add fields with Field.Store.COMPRESS. Nothing more
changed.
If you want to add field with some compression, you have to compress
yourself e.g. to a byte[]. You can then add this byte[] as a binary stored
f
