[jira] Resolved: (LUCENE-1828) MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1828?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Michael Busch resolved LUCENE-1828. --- Resolution: Fixed Committed revision 806444. Thanks, Tim! > MemoryIndex doesn

[jira] Assigned: (LUCENE-1828) MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1828?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Michael Busch reassigned LUCENE-1828: - Assignee: Michael Busch > MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.res

[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-1828) MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1828?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Tim Smith updated LUCENE-1828: -- Attachment: LUCENE-1828.patch Patch to call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end() in MemoryIndex

[jira] Created: (LUCENE-1828) MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end()

MemoryIndex doesn't call TokenStream.reset() and TokenStream.end() -- Key: LUCENE-1828 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1828 Project: Lucene - Java Issue

Re: Is there a reason MemoryIndex does not implement Serializable?

No reason done! Erik On Jun 25, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: It seems like it could, it even has serialVersionUID defined. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mai

Is there a reason MemoryIndex does not implement Serializable?

It seems like it could, it even has serialVersionUID defined.

Re: MemoryIndex

MemoryIndex was designed to maximize performance for a specific use case: pure in-memory datastructure, at most one document per MemoryIndex instance, any number of fields, high frequency reads, high frequency index writes, no thread-safety required, optional support for storing offsets

MemoryIndex

Along the lines of Lucene-550, what about having a MemoryIndex that accepts multiple documents, then wrote the index once at the end in the Lucene file format (so it could be merged) during close. When adding documents using an IndexWriter, a new segment is created for each document, and then the

Re: Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

Erik Hatcher wrote: On Jun 29, 2005, at 4:26 PM, markharw00d wrote: Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java? _http://www.mail-archive.com/java-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg00618.html_ This change looks good to me. I would have committed it earlier if others had

Re: Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

On Jun 29, 2005, at 4:26 PM, markharw00d wrote: Anyone have any objections to committing this addition to Term.java? _http://www.mail-archive.com/java-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg00618.html_ This change looks good to me. I would have committed it earlier if others had ok'd it. Erik -

Term.compareTerm and MemoryIndex

#x27;s pre-interned field name. The alternative solution would be to make the existing Term(field, value, isInterned) constructor public with a suitable javadoc warning about the caller ensuring use pre-interned fieldnames. The latest version of MemoryIndex is lingering in BugZilla waiting for