Re: Filesystem based bitset

[robert engels]

I have better things to do than read a 10,000 word incident that discusses about 100 different topics under the generic heading "Further steps towards flexible indexing" in order to answer a simple question. You are a moron.  And I don't mean that in a offensive way - I am using the secondary definition. Main Entry: mo·ron  Pronunciation:\ˈmȯr-ˌän\ Function:noun Etymology: irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid Date: 1910 1usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person 2: a very stupid person On Jan 9, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 03:42:35PM -0600, robert engels wrote: If your index can fit in the IO cache, you should using a completely   different implementation... You should be writing a sequential transaction log for add/update/  delete operations, and storing the entire index in memory   (RAMDirectory) - with periodic background flushes of the log. That'll work too. If you are running multiple processes (in KS), who is invoking them   (inetd or similar?), if not, and users are on the system, you can't   control what will happen with the IO cache... See LUCENE-1458. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org