Re: IndexWriter and IndexReader open at the same time

2005-08-09 Thread Doug Cutting
Greg Love wrote: In the TheServerSide case study of the book, page 375, they say that they close the IndexWriter and even point out that they did before openning the IndexReader and deleting. So that kinda makes me wonder if i'm safe having an IndexReader with deletions and and IndexWriter with

Re: apachecon

2006-09-28 Thread Doug Cutting
Chris Hostetter wrote: Spamming general so people on other subprojects besides java-user see this... I'll be there! Doug

Re: Infrastructure for large Lucene index

2006-10-06 Thread Doug Cutting
James wrote: Let me check with the powers that be here, and then get the code into a more polished form. We hope to have it really enterprise-ready over the next couple months. Great! Once you have permission, please post it sooner rather than later, then others can help with polishing, or

[PROPOSAL] index server project

2006-10-18 Thread Doug Cutting
It seems that Nutch and Solr would benefit from a shared index serving infrastructure. Other Lucene-based projects might also benefit from this. So perhaps we should start a new project to build such a thing. This could start either in java/contrib, or as a separate sub-project, depending on

Re: [PROPOSAL] index server project

2006-10-30 Thread Doug Cutting
Yonik Seeley wrote: On 10/18/06, Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We assume that, within an index, a file with a given name is written only once. Is this necessary, and will we need the lockless patch (that avoids renaming or rewriting *any* files), or is Lucene's current index behavior

New Technology Seeks To Let Startups Build Their Own Googles - Yahoo! News

2006-11-22 Thread Doug Cutting
Some good press for several Lucene projects! Doug

Re: Solr graduates and joins Lucene as sub-project

2007-01-17 Thread Doug Cutting
Yonik Seeley wrote: Solr has just graduated from the Incubator, and has been accepted as a Lucene sub-project! Congratulations and welcome! Doug

Re: Lucene Meetup in Amsterdam?

2009-02-26 Thread Doug Cutting
FWIW, I can make Tuesday but not Monday. Doug

Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy

2009-03-09 Thread Doug Cutting
Grant Ingersoll wrote: I'd _suggest_ a few other things beyond just code commits, however: +1 for all these. Finally, six months or so does sound like the right time frame. So we can consider this fair warning: if there have only been a few token commits, and there isn't activity

Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?

2010-02-24 Thread Doug Cutting
Michael McCandless wrote: I think, in order to stop duplicating our analysis code across Nutch/Solr/Lucene, we should separate out the analyzers into a standalone package, and maybe as its own sub-project under the Lucene tlp? Is the goal to release these on a separate schedule from Lucene

Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?

2010-03-01 Thread Doug Cutting
Ted Dunning wrote: Hadoop is a strange beast. The Hadoop core itself has fractured into three projects that have independent mailing lists but which share release dates. But without any releases yet. Is that shared nothing? The rationale for the Hadoop split was that the single codebase was

Re: Boosting on *unique* term matches without using MUST

2010-03-02 Thread Doug Cutting
This question probably belongs on java-user@, not gene...@. That said, coord() might be what you're looking for:,%20int%29 Doug tavi.nathanson wrote: Hey everyone, Let me start with an example

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development

2010-03-04 Thread Doug Cutting
Uwe Schindler wrote: One idea: If we really make solr depend on the new lucene lib, solr should not have lucene jars in its lib folder, but instead the nightly build should fetch the jars from the lucene hudson build. If Solr trunk is meant to always be based on Lucene trunk, then shouldn't

Re: Q re merging dev MLs

2010-03-04 Thread Doug Cutting
Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Didn't we see Hadoop do exactly the opposite? Doug described it as code-base being too big, but I'd say the original list was also too high traffic (was split into common-, hdfs-, and mapreduce- I believe). The intent is that eventually HDFS and MapReduce will evolve

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development

2010-03-04 Thread Doug Cutting
Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Doesn't this move towards having a shared code base, Yes. The desire seems to be to have a shared code base, no? and more so the criteria for that of a TLP? Thoughts? A shared codebase with a single pool of committers are canonical TLP attributes, if

Re: Less drastic ways

2010-03-16 Thread Doug Cutting
Grant Ingersoll wrote: As you've seen by the Board's indication, they only view that there should be a single Lucene project. One committership, one project. Or, two committerships, two projects. So, if the existing committer structure were acceptable, then Solr would be split to a separate

Re: [PMC] [DISCUSS] Lucy

2010-06-15 Thread Doug Cutting
On 06/14/2010 05:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP. It probably would have made sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not really sure what value that would add now

Re: Number of Boolean Clauses (AND vs OR)

2011-04-11 Thread Doug Cutting
On 04/11/2011 01:25 PM, entdeveloper wrote: Thanks Otis. And by your answer, does this mean that individual clauses in a boolean query are executed sequentially? not in parallel? Clauses are executed in parallel. The execution of a conjunction is able to efficiently skip occurrences in ranges

Re: Number of Boolean Clauses (AND vs OR)

2011-04-12 Thread Doug Cutting
On 04/12/2011 08:53 AM, Yang wrote: when you say executed in parallel, could you please elaborate more on what execute refers to? I mean that all matches for a query clause are not generally enumerated before any results of its containing query are enumerated. There's generally a single thread