[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Busch updated LUCENE-1960:
--
Attachment: lucene-1960-1.patch
It was as easy as changing this method in FieldsReader:
{code
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769531#action_12769531
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
I have some large indexes here from 2.9 wit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769527#action_12769527
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Yes, I believe this would work.
> Remove d
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769528#action_12769528
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Then +1 from me!
> Remove deprecated Field
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler resolved LUCENE-2006.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision: 829274
Thanks Mark for perf testing!
> Optimization
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769522#action_12769522
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
OK, I commit soon!
> Optimization for Fiel
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769520#action_12769520
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
So the idea is to raise the version number
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769521#action_12769521
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2006:
-
Right - I don't think we have to worry about th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769517#action_12769517
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
{quote}
But this is only one-time. As soon
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769515#action_12769515
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
I think it is because you only merge the to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769511#action_12769511
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
{quote}
Or better, we look into the FieldIn
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769509#action_12769509
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2006:
-
Okay Uwe -
I took a 2 GB zipped Wiki dump and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769510#action_12769510
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
But this is only one-time. As soon as it is
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769507#action_12769507
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
{quote}
Can't we detect that we're dealing
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769503#action_12769503
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Good idea, from where take the version?
Or
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769499#action_12769499
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
Right, because FieldsReader#rawDocs() does
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769497#action_12769497
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1960:
Can't we detect that we're dealin
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769494#action_12769494
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
And how about keeping the current lucene-19
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769490#action_12769490
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
I'm actually -1 for option 1). The whole im
> Well, we should then have added it to 2.9.0 already. Normally we don't
> introduce new APIs in bugfix releases.
>
> This could be a candidate for the backwards-compat break section: If you
> have compressed fields you need to change your code, otherwise drop-in
> will work.
2.9.1 already has s
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1960?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769489#action_12769489
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1960:
---
If we want to stay with the current patch,
On 10/23/09 3:19 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if
we
use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9,
too ->
I would not prefer this).
See the issue for details. I do not w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769485#action_12769485
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Well if the title is self explanatory as said,
> > Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if
> we
> > use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9,
> too ->
> > I would not prefer this).
See the issue for details. I do not want to add this method, as it would
break bw compatibility in 2.9 if
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769483#action_12769483
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
bq. I do not understand the whole
On 10/23/09 3:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LU
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we
> should
> > be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement
> in
> > QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
>
> That sounds l
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
> be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
> QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
That sounds like a big job th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769477#action_12769477
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1942:
---
I do not understand the whole problem. We h
I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should
be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in
QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API.
Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is
explain() in Scorer (
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769471#action_12769471
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Its not only a binary file, but it clearly says
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769468#action_12769468
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
But the attachment here is a bina
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769467#action_12769467
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
i'm not able to read this patch file either...
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769466#action_12769466
]
Hasan Diwan commented on LUCENE-1942:
-
Patch files are independent of the platform the
OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :)
Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the
release process on Monday.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additio
OK, done!
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I think I was the guy that removed everything from this testcase :-) I
> should have removed it after removing the old serach API.
>
> You can also remove it from BW branch, but I think a new tag is not needed
> now, this can
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1942?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769456#action_12769456
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1942:
Can you make a simple patch for t
I think I was the guy that removed everything from this testcase :-) I
should have removed it after removing the old serach API.
You can also remove it from BW branch, but I think a new tag is not needed
now, this can wait until the next big bw commit.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Miller resolved LUCENE-2003.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Lucene Fields: [New, Patch Available] (was: [New])
> Highlighter has p
I'll just remove TestStressSort...
Mike
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Indeed! It's doing nothing now. Just creating Sort objects but not
> in fact doing any searching with them. Hmm.
>
> Unfortunately, the test very much relied on the deprecated
> "setUseLegacyS
I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down
Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
Mike
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Rob
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-2002.
Resolution: Fixed
> Add oal.util.Version ctor to QueryParser
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2003?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769452#action_12769452
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2003:
Mark is this one done?
> Highlig
They are included in my last patch on LUCENE-1997. It's somewhat
hacked up though :) We'd have to redo it "for real" if we go forward
with this...
Mike
2009/10/23 John Wang :
> Hi Mike:
> Thank you! It would be really nice to get the optimizations you have
> done.
> -John
>
> 2009/10/23 Mic
Hi Mike:
Thank you! It would be really nice to get the optimizations you have
done.
-John
2009/10/23 Michael McCandless
> Agreed: so far I'm seeing serious performance loss with MultiPQ,
> especially as topN gets larger, and for int sorting.
>
> For small queue, String sort, it sometimes wi
Ahhh, ok, that makes sense.
Mike
2009/10/23 Uwe Schindler :
> Ist very easy to explain:
>
> The mergeinfo is inherited from top level directories downto each file. If
> one of the files already contained a mergeinfo in its properties (e.g. the
> TestBackwardsCompatibility), because it was merged
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769412#action_12769412
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. So the QueryParser ctors shou
Ist very easy to explain:
The mergeinfo is inherited from top level directories downto each file. If
one of the files already contained a mergeinfo in its properties (e.g. the
TestBackwardsCompatibility), because it was merged separately (I
reverse-merged this test as a separate action during my i
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769406#action_12769406
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
A mega patch, one thing:
The highlighter t
OK thanks for the pointer :) It's very strange indeed.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
> It's okay in a sense.
> See, svn's merge-tracking support was grafted onto it in a particulary
> hideous way and is really hairy on the insides.
> So while there's no sane expla
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769404#action_12769404
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
The reason why this code looked like this i
No - was considering how one might be added - Mike's python script
control to JIRA output stuff is just so cool, I'd hate to test any other
way ;) The new colors feature makes it even better. Not sure how best to
fit it in though - need a way to specify multiple indices obviously.
Would love to ge
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769398#action_12769398
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
Is there any MultiSearcher related task/alg
I opened LUCENE-2006.
Is there any MultiSearcher related task/alg in contrib/benchmark?
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October
Optimization for FieldDocSortedHitQueue
---
Key: LUCENE-2006
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Affects V
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2006:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-2006.patch
Patch.
> Optimization for FieldDocSortedHitQueue
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769389#action_12769389
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2006:
---
Mark Miller on java-dev:
{quote}
Nice! I l
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2002:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-2002.patch
Patch for trunk; I plan to commit soon...
> Add oal.u
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769368#action_12769368
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
I agree the new results are now m
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769365#action_12769365
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_20"
Java(TM) 2 Runtim
It's okay in a sense.
See, svn's merge-tracking support was grafted onto it in a particulary
hideous way and is really hairy on the insides.
So while there's no sane explanation for that behaviour, it is expected.
See -
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchme
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769332#action_12769332
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
Mike's latest results are more ambiguous - let
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769328#action_12769328
]
Jake Mannix commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
Mike, thanks for all the hard work on this - it
I've noticed recently when merging from 2.9.x -> trunk or vice/versa,
for some reason it picks up files that had zero source changes in the
revision I merged, but do show changes to their svn:mergeinfo.
EG for LUCENE-2002, I merged 2.9.x -> trunk, and now on my trunk
checkout I see this mods:
Pro
Nice! I like it. Even if its not much faster (havn't checked either), I
can't see it being much slower and its cleaner code.
I'd be happy to do some quick perf tests when I get a chance, but I'm +1
on it.
Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Mark,
>
> when removing may comment (as I now understand the whole
>
Yeah - coming up.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> This probably warrants a CHANGES entry?
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, wrote:
>
>> Author: markrmiller
>> Date: Fri Oct 23 17:07:22 2009
>> New Revision: 829128
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/view
This probably warrants a CHANGES entry?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM, wrote:
> Author: markrmiller
> Date: Fri Oct 23 17:07:22 2009
> New Revision: 829128
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=829128&view=rev
> Log:
> LUCENE-2003: Highlighter does
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769299#action_12769299
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
Actually to port to trunk I was g
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769295#action_12769295
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
32 bit 1.5 JRE:
JAVA:
java vers
Mark,
when removing may comment (as I now understand the whole
FieldDocSortedHitQueue), I found the following as a optimization of the
whole hq:
All FieldDoc values are Compareables (also the score or docid, if they
appear as SortField in a MultiSearcher or ParallelMultiSearcher). The code
of les
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769287#action_12769287
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1997:
Env:
JAVA:
java version "1.5.0_1
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1997:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1997.patch
New patch, fixes silly bug in sortBench.py.
> Explore
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1997:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1997.patch
New patch attached:
* Made some basic code level op
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kay Kay updated LUCENE-1257:
Attachment: LUCENE-1257_contrib_benchmark_2.patch
> Port to Java5
> -
>
> Key:
Yes, please do move to the Back Compat section; I think it really does
belong there.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I'm going through and updating my Lucene Boot Camp training for 2.9. In it,
> I have some code that shows the various ways you can do deletes.
>
>
I'm going through and updating my Lucene Boot Camp training for 2.9.
In it, I have some code that shows the various ways you can do deletes.
In 2.4, the code worked fine, in 2.9 it now fails. Here's the code:
public void testDeletions() throws Exception {
log.info("testDel
Agreed: so far I'm seeing serious performance loss with MultiPQ,
especially as topN gets larger, and for int sorting.
For small queue, String sort, it sometimes wins.
So if I were forced to decide now based on the current results, I
think we should keep the single PQ API.
But: I am right now opt
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769235#action_12769235
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
I know this problem of trunk. But the first
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769232#action_12769232
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. I am happy to then use the me
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2002:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-2002-29.patch
New patch, adding Version to StopAnalyzer as well.
Mark Miller wrote:
> bq. removing that if from the Multi PQ patch makes sense
>
> I didn't have a problem with that either - or other code changes - but
> jeeze, mention what you are seeing with the switch. I'll tell you what I
> saw it - not that much - a bit of improvement, but take a look at the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769227#action_12769227
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1997:
---
bq. it creates Comparable objects that can
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769222#action_12769222
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
bq. As most servers are running 64 bit,
Aren'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769221#action_12769221
]
Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1997 at 10/23/09 1:31 PM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769221#action_12769221
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1997:
-
bq. but how does this fit together.
Thats what
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769218#action_12769218
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
I am happy to then use the merge operations
>>I still think we should if performance is no
>>better with the new one.
Where is there any indication performance is not better with the new one?
The benchmarks are clearly against switching back. At best they could argue for
two API's - even then it depends - a loss of 10% on Java 1.5
with th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769214#action_12769214
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
+1 on this patch.
> Add oal.util.Versi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769213#action_12769213
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2002:
---
They only appear with native patch. All hig
Yup, I'm not against the testing or the thought - and it is clearly more
complicated - I'm not saying its not. But I haven't seen anyone thats
come and said they haven't grokked it yet or that they had a hard time
with it (though they have run into limitations in what they have tried
to do). John a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769203#action_12769203
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
Yes, they are near the $Id tags. That'
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769196#action_12769196
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2002:
bq. I'm getting errors applying t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769194#action_12769194
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1973:
---
Committed removal of BoostingTermQuery in r
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12765093#action_12765093
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1973 at 10/23/09 12:22 PM:
--
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1973-BoostingTermQuery.patch
remove BoostingTermQuery.
The xml-query-parse
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769190#action_12769190
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-2002:
-
I'm getting errors applying this, but t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12769186#action_12769186
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1257:
---
Committed:
LUCENE-1257_contrib_benchmark
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity-BW.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1973:
--
Attachment: (was: LUCENE-1973-Similarity.patch)
> Remove deprecated query components
> ---
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
