[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1693:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1693.patch
I changed TokenStream to use real final boolean variables to hel
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731315#action_12731315
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
{quote}
There is one case, when it also aff
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731317#action_12731317
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
{quote}
In my opinion, we should remove the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731330#action_12731330
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
bq. What we really should have is an Attrib
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1693:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1693.patch
> AttributeSource/TokenStream API improvements
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731332#action_12731332
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
{quote}
There is still the problem with a T
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731334#action_12731334
]
Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
{quote}
Have you seen my backwards compatib
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731337#action_12731337
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
bq. But I'm not sure how realistic this sce
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731354#action_12731354
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-1728:
-
Robert, I don't think we should rename
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731357#action_12731357
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-1728:
-
Simon, sounds good. I will update the patch / s
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731360#action_12731360
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-1728:
-
cool thanks!
> Move SmartChineseAnalyz
BooleanScorer2 fails to update this.doc when its the top scorer
---
Key: LUCENE-1744
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1744
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Bug
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1744?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1744:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1744.patch
Attached patch, including Shalin's test case (thanks!)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1744?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-1744.
Resolution: Fixed
Thanks Shalin!
> BooleanScorer2 fails to update this.doc when i
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1744?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731399#action_12731399
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1744:
good catch. I think this was before one of the is
Add ability to specify compilation/matching flags to RegexCapabiltiies
implementations
--
Key: LUCENE-1745
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1745
Proj
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Luis Alves updated LUCENE-1567:
---
Attachment: lucene_trunk_FlexQueryParser_2009july15_v6.patch
- Undo the changes on the build file to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731497#action_12731497
]
Luis Alves commented on LUCENE-1567:
I upload the patch that undo my changes on the bu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1566?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Willnauer updated LUCENE-1566:
Attachment: LUCENE_1566_IndexInput.patch
@Mike: Thanks for your comments.
I did run my tes
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731555#action_12731555
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1693:
---
After the whole day thinking about a soluti
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731555#action_12731555
]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-1693 at 7/15/09 10:04 AM:
---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Marc Zampetti updated LUCENE-1745:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1745.patch
Adding patch file with complete changes. All tests passed and in
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1505:
---
Attachment: LUCENE-1505.patch
Attached patch. I added utility methods to NumericUti
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731632#action_12731632
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1743:
-
The initial motive for the issue seems
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731635#action_12731635
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-1505:
-
Hey Mike, thanks for taking this. I was
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731636#action_12731636
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1505:
---
Patch looks good. The best is, that you can
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731632#action_12731632
]
Earwin Burrfoot edited comment on LUCENE-1743 at 7/15/09 12:14 PM:
-
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1738?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jason Rutherglen updated LUCENE-1738:
-
Attachment: LUCENE-1738.patch
Very basic start at the patch. The not IW.dir check is re
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731638#action_12731638
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1743:
---
A typical example, where MMap would be the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731639#action_12731639
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1743:
-
bq. My problem was more with all these
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler reopened LUCENE-1614:
---
Assignee: Michael McCandless
As Yonik noted on java-user, the backwards pattern is wrongly
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1614:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1614-advance-bw.patch
This patch fixes this. All tests, especially test-tag
Running solr unit tests seems a fair bit slower now. I think the root
cause may be this:
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a8bd12c3b87e98a3/speed_of_booleanqueries_on_2_9
That may be fixed, but I think we should implement the new methods anyway.
I'm also surprised that more chang
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1566?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731651#action_12731651
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1566:
Looks good Simon!
* From your
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1614:
--
Attachment: LUCENE-1614-advance-bw.patch
Here is a second possibility, maybe better. The javad
Hi Yonik,
could you try out, if my patch in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614 makes this better?
Currently I am not sure if the first is enough, or the second one is needed.
Maybe Mike and Shai should answer, why advance may be called with
NO_MORE_DOCS.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-
> I'm also surprised that more changes weren't necessary to get the
> latest Lucene to work... one thing in particular is docs out of order
> - Solr currently requires them in-order to correctly create DocSet
> instances, and I'm not sure this is the case any more. I'll look into
> it.
As far as
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731656#action_12731656
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1614:
Whoa I agree: advance should fall
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> As far as I know, Shalin implemented the Collectors in Solr with the method
> allowDocsOutOfOrder() returning false. So the collectors should create
> DocIdSet with correct order.
I think you meant "so the Scorers will be created so that the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless resolved LUCENE-1614.
Resolution: Fixed
> Add next() and skipTo() variants to DocIdSetIterator that retu
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, Shalin implemented the Collectors in Solr with the
> method
> > allowDocsOutOfOrder() returning false. So the collectors should create
> > DocIdSet with correct order.
>
> I think you meant "so the Scorers will be cre
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1566?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731663#action_12731663
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-1566:
-
bq. From your post above, I thought the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731676#action_12731676
]
Adriano Crestani commented on LUCENE-1567:
--
{quote}
I upload the patch that undo
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731688#action_12731688
]
Luis Alves commented on LUCENE-1567:
{quote}
I would like to suggest also "original"
Is this implementation of an iterator that returns documents between
first and last correct?
Going strictly by the javadoc, it's not... (docID specifically) but it
seems like it should be?
Is there anything in Lucene that this implementation would break?
class SliceDocIdSetIterator extends DocIdSe
Hi Yonik,
Mike committed my patch, so the fix should be in trunk.
I tested solr after that with a new Lucene JAR. Some tests run faster now!
But Solr should update its DocIdSetIterators soon...
-
UWE SCHINDLER
Webserver/Middleware Development
PANGAEA - Publishing Network for Geoscientific a
This Impl should do it. The problem is, if (last==Integer.MAX_VALUE), then
it would break because of overflow.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com]
Edit:
This Impl should do it. The problem is, if lucene would call nextDoc() if
doc is already Integer.MAX_VALUE (what it could do according to docs), then
it would break because of overflow.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> This Impl should do it. The problem is, if (last==Integer.MAX_VALUE), then
> it would break because of overflow.
That part is OK... I'm more talking about the Javadoc for docID()
which states that it returns
* -1 or {...@link #NO_MORE_DOCS
> > This Impl should do it. The problem is, if (last==Integer.MAX_VALUE),
> then
> > it would break because of overflow.
>
> That part is OK... I'm more talking about the Javadoc for docID()
> which states that it returns
>* -1 or {...@link #NO_MORE_DOCS} if {...@link #nextDoc()} or
>* {..
I believe we debated allowing the DISI to return any docID less than
its first real docID, not only -1, as you've done here, but I think
Shai found something wrong with that IIRC... but I can't find this
discussion. Shai do you remember / can you find this past discussion
/ am I just hallucinating
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-504?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12731744#action_12731744
]
Florian Waltersdorfer commented on LUCENE-504:
--
Hi,
something along the line
Thanks guys, I had actually meant this message to go to solr-dev...
hence the "but I think we should implement the new methods anyway".
I've implemented them, and the performance has returned to normal.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Did you also test, that the speed was going back to normal with the latest
fix in trunk (without modifying Solr code)?
I ran the Solr tests with updated lucene-core-2.9.jar here, but I was not
able to find out, which of the tests had the big slowdown. I only noticed
some speedup in some tests rela
Improve ParallelMultiSearcher
-
Key: LUCENE-1746
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1746
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Affects Versions: 3.0
55 matches
Mail list logo
