By 'order', I mean that I'm adding the documents in the big index sorted by date (in order to increase the sorting process). I wanna preserve this sorting after the merging process.

I'm not using the internal lucene ID in the code field. The code field contains my own IDs. I was asking, if I can do the merge using my own IDs (the code field), and not the lucene internal IDs, for example:

luceneID_0, code_x, title_x, content_x, language_x, date_x
luceneID_1, code_y, title_y, content_y, language_y, date_y

luceneID_0, code_y, cluster_y
luceneID_1, code_x, cluster_x

Will the prevous index structure procude an unconsistent merged index?

I wanna achieve the following merged index:
luceneID_0, code_x, title_x, content_x, language_x, date_x, cluster_x
luceneID_1, code_y, title_y, content_y, language_y, date_y, cluster_y

Thanks

Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

Albert,

--- Albert Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Thanks Otis, but I can merge two indexes with different fields?



Yes. Documents with different Fields can be stored in the same index. Not every Document has to have all fields, and it can even have a completely different set of Fields.



My big index has this fields, code, title, content, language and
date. I add the new documents incrementally.

The clustering index only contains the fields code, and cluster.
Merging the big index with the clustering one will preserve the order of the
big one?



I don't fully understand what you mean by 'order'. If you are asking whether internal document Ids will remain the same, the answer is negative. If you have deleted some documents, there will be gaps in document Id sequence, which Lucene will fill, thus re-assigning internal document Ids.



For example, if I have the following indexes:
Big index
code_1, title_1, content_1, language_1, date_1
code_2, title_2, content_2, language_2, date_2
....

Clustering index
code_1, cluster_1
code_2, cluster_2
....

then the new merged index will be:

Merged index
code_1, title_1, content_1, language_1, date_1, cluster_1
code_2, title_2, content_2, language_2, date_2, cluster_2
....

If I can do that then fine, but I think the merging process uses the lucene internal ID to match the documents. I wanna use the code field
to do that matching, is that possible?. I cannot be sure the lucene internal ID's are the same for the same codes in both indexes.



Are you storing the internal Lucene Document Id in the 'code' field? If you are, I suggest you change your application to use its own set of
unique Ids to serve as 'primary keys' in your indices.


Otis




Thanks again,

Albert


Otis Gospodnetic wrote:



(re-directing to lucene-user list)

Albert,

If I understand your question correctly... You could run a query


like


the one you gave on both indices, but if one of them contains


documents


that have only one of those fields (cluster), then there will never


be


any matches in the second index.

However, why not leave your big index along, add documents to a new,
smaller index, and then merge them periodically. I may be off with
this; it sounds like this is what you want to do, but I'm not


certain I


understood you fully.

Otis

--- Albert Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Hi all,

I was wondering If I can search using the MultiSearcher over two diferent indexes at the same time (with diferent fields).
I've got one big index, with the code, title, content, language,


etc

fields (new documents are added incrementally). Now, I have to
introduce a clustering field. The problem is that I have to update the whole
index each time the clusters change, and I have no enought time to do it


(I


wanna check for new clusters every 10 minuts and I spent 25 minutes
to reindex the whole index).
A query example could be: language:0 and title:java and cluster:0


Can I leave the big index whitout any changes and create a new


index

with only the following fields, code and cluster, and perform the searches using this two indexes? I think I cannot do that without changing the code. It would need a postprocess, matching all
returning codes from index 1 with index 2.


Anyone have a solution for this problem? I would appreciate that.









--
Albert Vila
Director de proyectos I+D
http://www.imente.com
902 933 242
[iMente “La información con más beneficios”]


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






-- Albert Vila Director de proyectos I+D http://www.imente.com 902 933 242 [iMente “La información con más beneficios”]


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to