Re: Placement plugin PR commit - soon

Please switch the API to use annotations before you commit this On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote: > > +1. Thanks for the heads up! This is a practice we all should adopt. > > On Tue, 15 Sep, 2020, 4:06 am Ilan Ginzburg, wrote: >> >> Advance notice: >> >> I plan to commi

Re: Avoiding false-positives in multivalued field search with intervals?

Thanks Michael. The outcome of this discussion seems to be clear that everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel somehow. ;) I think it really should become part of core Lucene functionality. Seems like a corner case people are not aware of until they hit it (and then it's not clear what to do about

Re: Placement plugin PR commit - soon

+1. Thanks for the heads up! This is a practice we all should adopt. On Tue, 15 Sep, 2020, 4:06 am Ilan Ginzburg, wrote: > Advance notice: > > I plan to commit to master/9.0 coming Wednesday September 16th the "Placement > plugin" PR correspondin

Placement plugin PR commit - soon

Advance notice: I plan to commit to master/9.0 coming Wednesday September 16th the "Placement plugin" PR corresponding to SOLR-14613 . This will be the first drop of code for the replacement of the

Re: Avoiding false-positives in multivalued field search with intervals?

This might be a little outside the spirit of this discussion (in that it's not really "off-the-shelf") -- but I implemented a proof-of-concept for a different use case that I think could be adapted here: For a given doc, for each term in your multivalued field, you could record a bitset representa

Re: 8.7 Release

With a view towards including it in the release, I'd appreciate input on the https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14828 solrj logging tweak if anyone has a moment? Thanks, Christine From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 08/20/20 22:48:39To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 8.7 Release Also,

Re: Avoiding false-positives in multivalued field search with intervals?

bq. Expanding a query over numerous fields grows combinatorically in the number of fields (if I want my query to match when all terms match in *some* field), doesn't it? I don't think it does? It grows linearly with the number of fields? In my experience the number of fields searchable "by default