[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Hoss Man updated LUCENE-1749:
-
Attachment: LUCENE-1749.patch
slightly revised patch based on java-...@lucene discussion...
the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741730#action_12741730
]
Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-533:
-
One problem here is that the Spans interface
I'm not just responding to just you there, but more to the growing
pack of those speaking against the new API. I don't see specific
issues being brought up - the only issues I have seen brought up have
been addressed in JIRA issues that have received no comments
indicating the fix was not
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Grant Ingersollgsing...@apache.org wrote:
Or... and this is one crazy idea... maybe we should simply release 3.0
next, not removing any deprecated APIs until 3.1 or later. Ie,
normal software on having so many major changes would release an X.0
release; I
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1792?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-1792.
Resolution: Fixed
new QueryParser fails to set AUTO REWRITE for multi-term
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1790?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741791#action_12741791
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1790:
Is this done?
Add Boosting
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1790?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741792#action_12741792
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1790:
Should we deprecate
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Michael Buschbusch...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a performance test in Solr that apparently ran much slower
after upgrading to the new Lucene jar. This test is testing a rather
uncommon scenario: very very short documents.
Actually, its more uncommon than that:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741804#action_12741804
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1794:
--
bq. I am thinking of expanding this patch to
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Robert Muirrcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Michael Buschbusch...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a performance test in Solr that apparently ran much slower
after upgrading to the new Lucene jar. This test is testing a rather
uncommon
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741805#action_12741805
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
{quote}
Now the problem: TokenStream.reset()
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I'm not just responding to just you there, but more to the growing
pack of those speaking against the new API. I don't see specific
issues being brought up - the only issues I have seen brought up
have been addressed in JIRA issues that
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 15:09, Yonik Seeleyyo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Robert Muirrcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Michael Buschbusch...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a performance test in Solr that apparently ran much slower
after
Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
The only person that tried to disprove this claim is Uwe. Others
either say the problems are solved, so it's okay to move to the new
API, or this will be usable when flexindexing arrives.
Others (not me) have spent a lot of time going over this before (more
than once I
The only person that tried to disprove this claim is Uwe. Others
either say the problems are solved, so it's okay to move to the new
API, or this will be usable when flexindexing arrives.
Others (not me) have spent a lot of time going over this before (more than
once I think) - they prob are
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741810#action_12741810
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1794:
--
For something like CachingTokenFilter to
Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
The only person that tried to disprove this claim is Uwe. Others
either say the problems are solved, so it's okay to move to the new
API, or this will be usable when flexindexing arrives.
Others (not me) have spent a lot of time going over this before (more than
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1790?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-1790.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Lucene Fields: (was: [Patch Available])
Deprecated
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741813#action_12741813
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
yonik, I see your point.
get rid of your
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1689?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741815#action_12741815
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1689:
-
this is just a reminder that I think if we go
I think extensible analysis (the new TokenStream API) is a net
positive: it gives us strongly typed and high performance
extensibility to a Token, so apps can now add whatever attrs they
want.
And, I see it as the first (of 3) big legs that we need to reach
flexible indexing. We really have to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1800?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yonik Seeley reassigned LUCENE-1800:
Assignee: Yonik Seeley
QueryParser should use reusable token streams
QueryParser should use reusable token streams
-
Key: LUCENE-1800
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1800
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Affects Versions: 2.9
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741837#action_12741837
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
bq. This would argue for a rewind() method.
Is
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741839#action_12741839
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
personally I like this idea. CachingTokenFilter
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741848#action_12741848
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1794:
--
I don't think we need a rewind() at all on
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741849#action_12741849
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
So what do you propose ? You would just cast
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741856#action_12741856
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1794:
-
Or even a Rewindable interface that can
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1794?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741859#action_12741859
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1794:
--
It depends on the use case for
Just as note related to this discussion:
TokenFilter#reset says:
/** Reset the filter as well as the input TokenStream. */
However, CachingTokenFilter does not reset the input TokenStream.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Mark Millermarkrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Just as note related to this discussion:
TokenFilter#reset says:
/** Reset the filter as well as the input TokenStream. */
However, CachingTokenFilter does not reset the input TokenStream.
Yeah - I caught that as
Just as note related to this discussion:
TokenFilter#reset says:
/** Reset the filter as well as the input TokenStream. */
However, CachingTokenFilter does not reset the input TokenStream.
That's a bug :-) but it is not a problem, as CachingTokenFilter will not
call the input filter
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1799?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741868#action_12741868
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1799:
-
I think right now this can be
On 08/11/2009 08:22 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
I do still think a longish 2.9 beta is warranted, if we can succeed in
getting users outside the dev group to kick the tires and uncover
stuff.
I think a beta would be a great idea. Not sure it needs to be longish.
Having not looked at it,
Uwe,
Is this example available? I think that an example like this would help
the user community see the current value in the change. At least, I'd
love to see the code for it.
-- DM
On 08/10/2009 06:49 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
UIMA
The new API looks like UIMA, you have streams that
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1796?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741952#action_12741952
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1796:
--
Token.clear() used to be called by the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1796?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12741957#action_12741957
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1796:
---
bq. I don't know if all of the Tokenizers
Tokenizers (which are the source of Tokens) should call
AttributeSource.clearAttributes() first
---
Key: LUCENE-1801
URL:
Here's my (non-binding) -1 for a 2.9 beta.
Before Lucene started using an X.Y.Z release naming process (v1.4 or
thereabouts), releases generally had multiple release candidates. This left
Lucene in quasi-released limbo for long periods of time. My take on the switch
to an X.Y.Z release
I don't think we should stick with the current path of replacing the
current QueryParser with the new contrib QueryParser in Lucene 3.0.
The new QueryParser has not been used much at all yet. Its interfaces
(which will need to abide by back compat in core) have not been vetted
enough.
The
+1, old QP should not be deprecated. Since the new one is in contrib,
it should just be stated that it doesn't necessarily have the same
back compat. issues as core, either that or it is marked as
experimental.
-Grant
On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
I don't think we
Yes, we should not deprecate the old one!
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:32 PM
To:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1801?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742012#action_12742012
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1801:
---
There is an additional problem (mentioned
On 8/11/09 4:13 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I'm not just responding to just you there, but more to the growing
pack of those speaking against the new API. I don't see specific
issues being brought up - the only issues I have seen brought up
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742037#action_12742037
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1771:
-
I think the Changes entries could still use
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742045#action_12742045
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-533:
Paul:
Spans is breaking back compat in this
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742051#action_12742051
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1771:
Maybe say Weight#explain now
Agreed, don't deprecate our beloved QueryParser.
Erik
On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
I don't think we should stick with the current path of replacing the
current QueryParser with the new contrib QueryParser in Lucene 3.0.
The new QueryParser has not been used much
On Aug 11, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
On 8/11/09 4:13 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I'm not just responding to just you there, but more to the
growing pack of those speaking against the new API. I don't see
specific issues
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742063#action_12742063
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1771:
-
Okay - just ran the tests one more time and
Un-deprecate QueryParser and remove documentation that says it will be replaced
in 3.0
--
Key: LUCENE-1802
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1802
+1
Mike
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Michael Buschbusch...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree we should not remove the old one in 3.0. That's way too early.
If we change the bw-policy we can replace it maybe in 3.1.
On 8/11/09 11:40 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Yes, we should not deprecate the old
Hi DM,
It is not public at the moment and still in development. I can public the
XML tokenizer when it is finished.
In general it shows one possible use-case for custom attributes. Maybe we
get something like this in future: Just tag all tokens with the field name
(using a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742101#action_12742101
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1577:
-
bq. normally bulk indexing is done up front,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1748?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742104#action_12742104
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1748:
-
I'm tempted to make Spans abstract. We don't
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1029?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Miller closed LUCENE-1029.
---
Resolution: Invalid
The new ASCIIFoldingFilter is the current best work on this. Future issues
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742131#action_12742131
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-636:
Both of the properties Hoss mentioned are now
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1720?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742138#action_12742138
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-1720:
--
I am interested in using this code,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Miller resolved LUCENE-1771.
-
Resolution: Fixed
committed - thanks all!
Using explain may double ram reqs for fieldcaches
Mark,
I support not deprecating the current QP.
But I just wanted to comment on let's wait 'till people add more syntaxes.
I don't think that that's the issue here. The new QP is indeed useful for
plugging in different search syntaxes, but I personally don't believe that
in an application more
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742212#action_12742212
]
Ken Geis commented on LUCENE-636:
-
I would not close this until the code is removed, not
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1768?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12742223#action_12742223
]
Adriano Crestani commented on LUCENE-1768:
--
{quote}
The proposed RangeTools seems
I'm starting to use the new parser to emulate Google's queries
(i.e. a phrase query with a single term means no-stemming,
something the current QP doesn't allow because it converts the
quoted query into a term query inside the JavaCC portion). It's
been very straightforward and logical to use (so
63 matches
Mail list logo
