Le Samedi 05 Août 2006 09:54, Nicolas Lalevée a écrit :
Le Jeudi 3 Août 2006 21:49, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
That looks good, but there is one restriction : it have to be per
document.
Yes, what I laid out was per-document - for
Le Jeudi 3 Août 2006 21:49, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
That looks good, but there is one restriction : it have to be per
document.
Yes, what I laid out was per-document - for each document, the fdx
file would keep a file pointer and an
Doing this beak compatibility with non-Java Lucene implementations.
Not sure it matters, but I thought I would point it out. I have
always thought that Lucene should be compatible at an API level only,
and MAYBE create a network access protocol for queries and updates.
On Jul 31, 2006, at
Le Jeudi 20 Juillet 2006 22:18, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
Then I looked deeper in the Lucene file format, and I manage to
introduce some
generic field metadata without breaking the file format
compatibility. I just
used another bit of
On Jul 21, 2006, at 1:23 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
In fact, that was my first implementaion. The problem with that is
you can
only store one value. But thinking a little more about it, storing
one or
more value is not an issue, because with the solution I proposed,
no space is
saved at
On Jul 19, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
Then I looked deeper in the Lucene file format, and I manage to
introduce some
generic field metadata without breaking the file format
compatibility. I just
used another bit of the Bits to mark that there is or not some
metadata on
the
Le Mercredi 05 Juillet 2006 13:23, Michael Busch a écrit :
Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has laid
out for backwards compatibility.
Perhaps we can
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006, Paul Elschot wrote about Re: Flexible index format /
Payloads Cont'd:
Ok, then, I thought to myself - the normal queries and scorers only work
on the document level and don't use positions - but SpanQueries have
positions
so I can create some sort
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 23:51, Nadav Har'El wrote:
...
The problem is that Scorer, and it's implementations - BooleanScorer2,
DisjunctionSumScorer and ConjunctionScorer - only work on the document
level. Scorer has next() and skipTo(), but no way to view positions
inside the document. If you
Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has laid
out for backwards compatibility.
Perhaps we can implement an all-new index format, in a new package.
An
Michael Busch wrote:
I would like to help working on a new index format.
Who else is going to work on it?
The folks working on Lucy are probably interested (Marvin David).
Perhaps the first thing should be to specify the file format, then
implement it both in Java (for Lucene Java) and C
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has laid out
for backwards compatibility.
Perhaps we can implement an all-new index format, in a new package. An
implementation of
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to
get this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has
laid out for backwards compatibility.
Perhaps we can implement an all-new index
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006, Marvin Humphrey wrote about Re: Flexible index format /
Payloads Cont'd:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006, Marvin Humphrey wrote about Re: Flexible
index format / Payloads Cont'd:
* Improve IR precision, by writing a Boolean Scorer that
takes position into account, a la Brin
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Personally, I'm less interested in adding new features than I am in
solidifying and improving the core.
The benefits I care about are:
* Decouple Lucene from it's file format.
o Make back-compatibility easier.
o Make refactoring easier.
o All the other
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006, Marvin Humphrey wrote about Re: Flexible index format /
Payloads Cont'd:
* Improve IR precision, by writing a Boolean Scorer that
takes position into account, a la Brin/Page '98.
Yes, I'd love to see that too (and it doesn't even require any new payloads
support
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has laid out
for backwards compatibility.
For newcomers to the project is there a link to these commitments?
I looked aorund the Lucene site
On Jun 30, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has
laid out
for backwards compatibility.
For newcomers to the project is
On Jun 30, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006, Marvin Humphrey wrote about Re: Flexible
index format / Payloads Cont'd:
* Improve IR precision, by writing a Boolean Scorer that
takes position into account, a la Brin/Page '98.
Yes, I'd love to see that too
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Jun 30, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
IMO, this should wait. It's going to be freakishly difficult to get
this stuff to work and maintain the commitments that Doug has laid out
for backwards compatibility.
For
On Jun 30, 2006, at 1:55 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
So adding this payload feature to the Lucene core for a release 2.X
is not a big risk in my opinion for the following reasons:
- API only extended
- Lucene 2.X will be able to read an index created with an earlier
version, because the
Hi everyone,
I'm working for IBM and started recently looking into Lucene.
I am very interested in the topic flexible indexing / payloads,
that was discussed a couple of times in the last two months. I
did some investigation in the mailing lists, and found several
threads about this topic. Those
22 matches
Mail list logo
