I'm trying to get Lucene's hot backup functionality to work. I posted the
question in detail over at StackOverflow, but it seems there's very little
Lucene knowledge over there.
Basically, I think I have setup everything correctly, but I can't get a
valid snapshot when trying to do a backup. I'm
tLiveConfig().getIndexDeletionPolicy(),
> > rather than IndexWriterConfig.getIndexDeletionPolicy(). I'm not sure what
> > Indexer.getSnapshotter() does, but I'd make sure that it uses IW.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:34 AM,
Hi,
I'm trying to optimize an index we have, and one thing that has come up
recently is that we're not really using term frequencies, and we don't need
any scoring. We noticed that the term frequencies (.doc files) are a
significant chunk of the total index size, and we'd like to reduce those,
or
rcos Juarez
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Marcos Juarez Lopez
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to optimize an index we have, and one thing that has come up
> > rec
Thanks Mike. Yeah, I guess it wouldn't work for us in that case.
Marcos
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Marcos Juarez Lopez
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your quick response
I've been looking at multiple optimizations we could do in our Lucene
indexes (currently around ~8B total spread out in indexes of ~250M
documents each) for querying fields that have very low cardinality (usually
true/false, or in some cases, less than 10 categories). I would have
thought Lucene o
Posted something similar some time ago, but didn't get any responses, so I
thought I'd try again with more details.
We allow end-user queries that have our own proprietary query language,
which we then translate to a Lucene Query* AST. This has worked well for
us. However, a few of the operators
