Hello,
I have a strange problem: the very same call executes 10 times faster under
Windows than under Linux: The line
writer.addDocument(doc)
takes < 1ms under Windows, but > 10ms under Linux. maxBufferedDocs = 1,
number of documents to index < 1, flushing takes place only one time
Hello,
sorry that I sent a user question to the developer list! Please discard it.
Best regards
Hans-Peter
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> Done. For the record, the script runs:
>
It works fine! I just checked the website and it has been updated by the
script.
Only the new "nightly documentation" link doesn't work yet. Did you add
the following line to your script (I mentioned it in my last mail)?
/usr
Sorry, missed that one. I put it in and ran the script. Should
propagate in an hour or so.
-Grant
On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Done. For the record, the script runs:
It works fine! I just checked the website and it has been updated by
the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll closed LUCENE-400.
--
Resolution: Won't Fix
Assignee: (was: Lucene Developers)
Lucene has NGram support
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-205?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll closed LUCENE-205.
--
Resolution: Won't Fix
Assignee: (was: Lucene Developers)
I don't see what this offers
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-417?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-417.
Resolution: Incomplete
Assignee: (was: Lucene Developers)
No patch, no tests, thi
I can't remember, did we say we are going to go to 2.4 or 2.9 next? I
suppose it depends a bit on 2.3, but I generally think we should move
onto 2.9 and then 3.0 fairly quickly.
Thoughts?
-Grant
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll updated LUCENE-494:
---
Affects Version/s: 2.4
I think it makes sense to add this in after the 2.3 release.
> Analyz
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1104?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll closed LUCENE-1104.
---
Resolution: Fixed
I think the remaining 3 issues are reasonable to keep open
> Clean up old
I think we said that we wanted a 2.4 release. There are a bunch of
issues with Fix Version 2.4. And it would be nice to get them into 2.4
instead of 3.x, because some of them involve fairly big API changes,
like LUCENE-584 or LUCENE-831. Then we could get rid of all the
deprecated APIs in 3.0 and c
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-685?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-685.
Resolution: Won't Fix
Interfaces are hard to maintain from an API perspective and we have _
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-671?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-671.
Resolution: Won't Fix
> Hashtable based Document
>
>
>
Cool, thanks Grant!
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Sorry, missed that one. I put it in and ran the script. Should
> propagate in an hour or so.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>
>>> Done. For the record, the script runs:
>>>
>>
>> It w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-737?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Grant Ingersoll resolved LUCENE-737.
Resolution: Won't Fix
Lucene Fields: [Patch Available] (was: [Patch Available, New])
Michael Busch wrote:
>
> One question that came to my mind: What's our policy for file format
> backwards-compatibility? Is it the same as for APIs. That would mean
> that Lucene 3.0 would have to be able to read indexes built with 2.9 but
> not with earlier versions. I'd be all for such a policy,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-685?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12558315#action_12558315
]
Kenny MacLeod commented on LUCENE-685:
--
Interfaces in APIs are hard to manintain... y
: Hmm, actually this is probably too restrictive. But maybe we could say
: that Lucene 3.0 doesn't have to be able to read indexes built with
: versions older than 2.0?
that is in fact the position that lucene has had since as long as i've ben
involved with it...
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-j
Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : Hmm, actually this is probably too restrictive. But maybe we could say
> : that Lucene 3.0 doesn't have to be able to read indexes built with
> : versions older than 2.0?
>
> that is in fact the position that lucene has had since as long as i've ben
> involved with it..
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12558350#action_12558350
]
Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-400:
Lucene has *character* NGram support, but not *wor
See http://lucene.zones.apache.org:8080/hudson/job/Lucene-Nightly/336/changes
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21 matches
Mail list logo
