On May 18, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Günther Starnberger wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
The term scorer will give higher score on documents containing both
terms. This is a problem (in our application) since in this case want
the same score on documents a
Från: Günther Starnberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 23:22
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
> The term scorer will give higher score on d
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
> The term scorer will give higher score on documents containing both
> terms. This is a problem (in our application) since in this case want
> the same score on documents as long as they contain 1 of the terms
> (since we are d
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If i use lucene default implementation of the TermScorer and search for
"you" OR "her"
The term scorer will give higher score on documents containing both terms. This
is a problem (in our application) since in this case want the same score o
Well that book is cool =)
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 22:56
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Marcus Falck wrote:
> Where can i read more about the luc
On May 18, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Marcus Falck wrote:
Where can i read more about the lucene sort implementation?
Does there exist any documentation on the sorting except for the
Lucene API docs?
Well, there is "Lucene in Action" which covers sorting in a fair bit
of detail. I hear that book i
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 20:39
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you
@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you were aware of the large amounts
> of data that this system should be able to search you woldn't propose the
> usage of a data
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you were aware of the large amounts of
data that this system should be able to search you woldn't propose the usage of
a database.
If you have a hard requirement of instantly seeing any update, you
ca
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 20:09
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
> But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
Well, the more RAM you have the better when it comes
ch machine
won't have 500 Million docs but maybe around 100Million.
So i'm still interesting in changing the relevance.
Any ideas?
/
Marcus
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 17:43
Till: java-user@lucene.apach
On May 18, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
Well, the more RAM you have the better when it comes to Solr
responsiveness, I'm sure. But, Solr leverages some caching
cleverness so the queries and filters used most frequently are in
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But since my "real" index will be around 2TB in size I don't think sorting is
the right way to go? I pretty sure I will have to modify the ranking.
They are both sorts, and they both use a priority queue. The
differences shouldn't be that gr
But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 17:24
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ?
Yes, but Solr handles the mechanics of warming up a new searcher in
the background to avoid those lengthy first-time hits to the
FieldCache and norms, and it warms any configured caches
e ranking.
And yes the data must be instantly available.
/
Marcus
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: karl wettin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 16:48
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:22 +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:22 +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
> Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ?
Solr comes with more cache.
Is it a requirement that the new data is instantly available?
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ?
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 14:57
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Marcus Falck
: Re: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
Yes Erik I'm instantiating a new IndexSearcher for every search.
Then don't :) You only need a new IndexSearcher instance when the
index itself has changed.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Er
Yes I know. But the index is changed constantly.
/ Marcus
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:52
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
>
PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:08
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:52 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
I have slow subsequent searches.
And if i get the cache up and running is it persisted to disc?
No, Lucene's caches are not persist
Yes Erik I'm instantiating a new IndexSearcher for every search.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:08
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:52 AM, Marcus Falck wrote
ou're likely not leveraging any caches at all.
Erik
/Marcus
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: on 2006-05-17 16:31
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/17/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I have slow subsequent searches.
And if i get the cache up and running is it persisted to disc?
/Marcus
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: on 2006-05-17 16:31
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/17/06
On 5/17/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did a quite interesting notice, if i search for IndexId:x
(IndexId is unique) with a sort it still takes very long time, which
it doesn't without the sort.
This will only be the case the first time you sort on a field because
a FieldCache
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 14:23 +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
>
> I did a quite interesting notice, if i search for IndexId:x
> (IndexId is unique) with a sort it still takes very long time, which
> it doesn't without the sort.
>
> Does anybody know why? I mean the resultset contains exactly 1
> doc
I did a quite interesting notice, if i search for IndexId:x
(IndexId is unique) with a sort it still takes very long time, which
it doesn't without the sort.
Does anybody know why? I mean the resultset
contains exactly 1 document.
/Regards
Marcus
27 matches
Mail list logo
