[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-72?page=all ]
Dejan Nenov updated LUCENE-72:
--
Attachment: TestRegressionLucene72.java
This issue was so old that I wanted to verify thatit still exists.
The attached test is specific to the issue and indeed show
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-72?page=all ]
Dejan Nenov updated LUCENE-72:
--
Attachment: TestRegressionLucene72.java
This issue was so old that I wanted to verify thatit still exists.
The attached test is specific to the issue and indeed show
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 8/28/06, Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Added:
> lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
> IndexWriter.java.orig
> lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
> doron_2_IndexWriter.patch (with props)
Just in case this was accident
On 8/28/06, Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Added:
> lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
> IndexWriter.java.orig
> lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
> doron_2_IndexWriter.patch (with props)
Just in case this was accidental, was the orig and
Added:
lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
IndexWriter.java.orig
lucene/java/trunk/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/
doron_2_IndexWriter.patch (with props)
Just in case this was accidental, was the orig and patch files meant
to be added to the repo?
cheers,
Pau
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-635?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley resolved LUCENE-635.
-
Fix Version/s: 2.0.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Yonik Seeley
Committed. Thanks Michael!
> [PATCH] Decouple locking implementation from Dire
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-665?page=comments#action_12431100 ]
Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-665:
> obtain() is supposed to return success or failure immediately.
> I'd be tempted to override obtain(timout) for FS locks
Hi,
I am trying to run CNLP ApacheCon 2005 Demo but I am not able to run it or
perhaps not able to deploy it properly.
I am using ..
jdk1.5.0_06
Tomcat 5.5.17
What I did..
1 ) I copied files from src\main\web\ (inside cnlp-apachecon.zip) and
created a folder,apachecon, in webapps directory and
On Monday 28 August 2006 23:17, eks dev wrote:
> you are right Chuck, it depends... Filters are great for fields with small
cardinality (majority of terms in normal collection) or things that are
sorted (assuming Paul's patch gets commited so we do not use BitSet and we
could use less memory hun
you are right Chuck, it depends... Filters are great for fields with small
cardinality (majority of terms in normal collection) or things that are sorted
(assuming Paul's patch gets commited so we do not use BitSet and we could use
less memory hungry structures like interval lists :) With BitSet
Andrzej Bialecki wrote on 08/28/2006 09:19 AM:
> Chuck Williams wrote:
>> I presume your search steps are anded, as in typical drill-downs?
>>
>> >From a Lucene standpoint, each sequence of steps is a BooleanQuery of
>> required clauses, one for each step. To add a step, you extend the
>> Boole
Chuck Williams wrote:
I presume your search steps are anded, as in typical drill-downs?
>From a Lucene standpoint, each sequence of steps is a BooleanQuery of
required clauses, one for each step. To add a step, you extend the
BooleanQuery with a new clause. To not re-evaluate the full query,
I presume your search steps are anded, as in typical drill-downs?
>From a Lucene standpoint, each sequence of steps is a BooleanQuery of
required clauses, one for each step. To add a step, you extend the
BooleanQuery with a new clause. To not re-evaluate the full query,
you'd need some query th
I have been browsing the JIRA repository looking to possible help cleanup
old stuff.
Would one of the committers please take a look at
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-25?
There seems to be a patch submitted on Feb 10, 2004, but the issue has
neither been closed nor marked "won't Fix".
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-665?page=comments#action_12430990 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-665:
-
A single retry in Lock.obtain() makes the error less likely, but certainly not
impossible... the second attempt could fa
Seems this question belongs to the user mailing list.
Can you post it in the user list instead?
Thanks,
Doron
"zhu jiang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/08/2006 23:58:31:
> Hi all,
> I use multi-threads to do indexing work, sometimes I get invalid
handle
> exception. I am certain that I us
Please elaborate.
On Aug 28, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
Hello,
We think we would have a problem if we try to use lucene because we
do search combinations which might have hundreds of steps, so creating
a combined query and executing again each time might be a problem.
What
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: If you have an index that has separate norms (.sN or .fN files), and
: you open a reader against this index, and then try to use another
: reader to change (& commit) the norms, that second reader will hit an
: IOException (Access Denied) on Windows during commit because
Hello,
We think we would have a problem if we try to use lucene because we
do search combinations which might have hundreds of steps, so creating
a combined query and executing again each time might be a problem.
What would entail overhauling Lucene to do search combinations by
taking advantage
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-665?page=comments#action_12430942 ]
Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-665:
Stopping the anti-virus and its friends did not matter - still getting the
errors.
However saw a case that the 30ms did no
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-38?page=all ]
Dejan Nenov updated LUCENE-38:
--
Attachment: TestRangeQuery.patch
Added additional tests, using "null" as the lower term in the range query. The
tests are commented to indicate how they should be m
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-38?page=all ]
Dejan Nenov updated LUCENE-38:
--
Attachment: TestRangeQuery.patch
Added additional tests, using "null" as the lower term in the range query. The
tests are commented to indicate how they should be m
22 matches
Mail list logo
