Thanks Dawid, glad I asked!
Am Dienstag, den 25.09.2018, 10:46 +0200 schrieb Dawid Weiss:
> Use MMapDirectory on a temporary location, Matthias. If you really
> need in-memory indexes, a new Directory implementation is coming
> (RAMDirectory will be deprecated, then removed), but the difference
>
Use MMapDirectory on a temporary location, Matthias. If you really
need in-memory indexes, a new Directory implementation is coming
(RAMDirectory will be deprecated, then removed), but the difference
compared to MMapDirectory is typically not worth the hassle. See this
issue for more discussion.
h
Ok. I reverted back to the version without a public clear() method.
Wolfgang.
On Nov 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, jm wrote:
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
> On 1
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
> On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
>>
>> > I tested this.
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
> I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
> and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
> method to clear t
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
> I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
> and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
> method to clear the cache each time a new document was to b
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be indexed,
and then it worked as expected. I have never looked
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be indexed,
and then it worked as expected. I have never looked into lucenes inner
working so I am not sur
thanks. I'll try to get this working and see wether there is a perf
difference during the weekend.
On 11/23/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Out of interest, I've checked an implementation of something like
this into AnalyzerUtil SVN trunk:
/**
* Returns an analyzer wrappe
Out of interest, I've checked an implementation of something like
this into AnalyzerUtil SVN trunk:
/**
* Returns an analyzer wrapper that caches all tokens generated by
the underlying child analyzer's
* token stream, and delivers those cached tokens on subsequent
calls to
* tok
I've never tried it, but I guess you could write an Analyzer and
TokenFilter that no only feeds into IndexWriter on
IndexWriter.addDocument(), but as a sneaky side effect also
simultaneously saves its tokens into a list so that you could later
turn that list into another TokenStream to be a
checking one last thing, just in case...
as I mentioned, I have previously indexed the same document in another
index (for another purpose), as I am going to use the same analyzer,
would it be possible to avoid analyzing the doc again?
I see IndexWriter.addDocument() returns void, so it does not
Ok, thanks, I'll give MemoryIndex a go, and if that is not good enoguh
I will explore the other options then.
On 11/21/06, Wolfgang Hoschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:43 AM, jm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have to decide between using a RAMDirectory and MemoryIndex, but
> not sure
On Nov 21, 2006, at 7:43 AM, jm wrote:
Hi,
I have to decide between using a RAMDirectory and MemoryIndex, but
not sure what approach will work better...
I have to run many items (tens of thousands) against some queries (100
at most), but I have to do it one item at a time. And I already have
21 nov 2006 kl. 16.43 skrev jm:
Any thoughts?
You can also try InstantiatedIndex, similair in speed and design with
a MemoryIndex, but can handle multiple documents, IndexReader,
IndexWriter, IndexModifier et.c. just like any Directory
implementation. It requires a minor patch to the Lu
On Nov 21, 2006, at 12:38 PM, jm wrote:
Ok, thanks, I'll give MemoryIndex a go, and if that is not good enoguh
I will explore the other options then.
To get started you can use something like this:
for each document D:
MemoryIndex index = createMemoryIndex(D, ...)
for each query Q:
16 matches
Mail list logo
