Hi,
I know there are several options, though none of which I have tried myself.
Rsync win32 port: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rsyncwin32/
rsync python script (should be platform-independent):
http://www.vdesmedt.com/~vds2212/rsync.html
Jarsync (in java): http://jarsync.sourceforge.net/, which
I think cygwin will do the trick.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Rajesh parab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone used rsync or similar utilities on Windows
> OS to replicate Lucene index across multiple machines?
>
> Any pointers on it will be very useful?
>
> Regards,
> Ra
Hi All,
Has anyone used rsync or similar utilities on Windows
OS to replicate Lucene index across multiple machines?
Any pointers on it will be very useful?
Regards,
Rajesh
--- Rajesh parab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks a lot for your suggestions.
>
> I was looking at r
Yes, I found it is because the index-files are bad, it is not because of the
time-resolution( my resolution is -MM-ddHH:mm:ss, as I work for a
newspaper group-company, so the time of news pulishing must be more accurate
than normal use!)
But now the time sorting is alright!
I can sorting the
>> When it is known in advance that "w?rd" and "wor*" will be used in
queries a lot, one can write a tokenizer that indexes them so that they can
be searched directly.
No, that was not at all what I tried to suggest. I will try to explain
better, please try to be open-minded :)
Lucene accesses t
Hi all,
I am wondering if there are possible "holes" in set of index documents
ids. Being more specific - is it possible that there exist integer i
between 0 and IndexReader.maxDoc() such that
reader.document(i) == null
and
reader.isDeleted(i)==false
???
Regards,
wojtek
--
This has been discussed many times on the list, you'd find a wealth
of information if you searched the mail archive.
The problem usually is that you've stored your dates with fine
resolution. Sorting is dependent on the number of terms, and
if you store millisecond resolution you'll obviously have
Allen Atamer a écrit :
My dictionary filter currently implements next() and everything works well
when dictionary entries are replaced one-to-one. For example: Can =>
Canada.
A problem arises when I try to replace it with more than one word. Going
through next() I encounter "shutdown". But
