The only tricky point I saw with 3.0 Lucene switch was that the TokenStream API changed completely, and IndexWriter in your code depended on the old API.
I've ruled out OrderPreservingPartitioner for other jobs of mine because distribution of keys is likely not ideal across my cluster. I'm curious with Lucandra if the keys truly distribute well? R On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Jake Luciani <jak...@gmail.com> wrote: > It "should" work but not a ton has changed in 2.9/3.0 AFAIK. I'm going to > work on updating Lucandra to work with 0.5 branch I can try to update this > as well. BTW, if you want to see Lucandra in action check out > http://flocking.me (example: http://flocking.me/tjake ) > > You can use a random partitioner if you store the entire index under a > supercolumn (how it was originally implemented) but then you need to accept > the entire index will be in memory for any operation on that index (bad for > big indexes). > > -Jake > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ryan Daum <r...@thimbleware.com> wrote: > >> On the topic of Lucandra, apart from having it work with 0.5 of Cassandra, >> has any work been done to get it up to date with Lucene 2.9/3.0? >> >> Also, I'm a bit concerned about its use of OrderPreservingPartitioner; is >> there an architecture for storage that could be considered that would work >> with RandomPartitioner? >> >> Ryan >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, ML_Seda <sonnyh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> i do see the classes now, but All the way back in version .20. Is there >>> a >>> newer version of Lucandra. It would be nice for us to use the lastest >>> cassandra (trunk). >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n2.nabble.com/Data-Model-Index-Text-tp4275199p4293071.html >>> Sent from the cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org mailing list archive >>> at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >
