jpountz merged PR #12927:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12927
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
jpountz opened a new issue, #12956:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12956
### Description
#12895 highlighted that our backward compatibility tests could use some
love. I reviewed what we have and tried to collect a list of things we should
improve:
- [ ] Add
s1monw commented on PR #12829:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12829#issuecomment-1862391122
@mikemccand @jpountz I updated this PR and moved everything to FielInfo /
IWC. I think it's ready. the only thing that I'd like to discuss is that we are
currently recording the number
jpountz merged PR #12926:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12926
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
jpountz merged PR #12929:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12929
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
jpountz commented on PR #12954:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12954#issuecomment-1862482539
I wonder if there is a performance impact, since this is moving a condition
from something that runs once per block of 128 docs to something that map run
on every doc.
--
This is an
jpountz commented on PR #12929:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12929#issuecomment-1862488472
From a quick check, the luceneutil version has much more complexity around
indexing facets, doc values, etc. It's not entirely obvious to me if sharing
the code would help or hurt.
--
s1monw commented on PR #12741:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12741#issuecomment-1862531327
I wanted to give my $0.02 on this. I am not convinced that a 2% change on a
benchmark warrants a 6.2k SLoC addition to such an important codebase. I think
the differences in terms of
jpountz commented on code in PR #12897:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12897#discussion_r1431673997
##
lucene/codecs/src/test/org/apache/lucene/codecs/simpletext/TestSimpleTextSegmentInfoFormat.java:
##
@@ -33,4 +43,39 @@ protected Version[] getVersions() {
gokaai commented on PR #12872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12872#issuecomment-1863127752
Decided to tackle this in smaller steps -
- Made a new (simpler) revision where we throw a more specific error on
encountering missing segment info. Created a new exception
gokaai commented on code in PR #12872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12872#discussion_r1431602197
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/SegmentInfos.java:
##
@@ -389,13 +389,39 @@ private static void parseSegmentInfos(
}
long totalDocs = 0;
+
easyice commented on PR #12954:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12954#issuecomment-1862859903
ohhh.. You said makes sense, i will check it. Thank you Adrien!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use
s1monw commented on PR #12829:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12829#issuecomment-1862667309
@mikemccand I don't think we have any impact on performance here at all if
this feature is not in use. If you look at DWPT there is a final field that
decides if there is further
13 matches
Mail list logo
