Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
>
> I have a follow-up question to this thread on Field.Store.COMPRESS in
> 2.9.1
> and beyond. I'm getting a bit confused between the changes in 2.9.1 and
> 3.0
> so I want to make sure I know what's going on. We
I have a follow-up question to this thread on Field.Store.COMPRESS in 2.9.1
and beyond. I'm getting a bit confused between the changes in 2.9.1 and 3.0
so I want to make sure I know what's going on. We also use old-style
compressed fields and are about to upgrade to 2.9.1.
Is the following accur
ail.com]
Sent: 09 December 2009 16:03
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
There are a LOT of deprecated stuff in 2.9.1 (but it's still there)
and your code should run as it is
(however there are some changes in behavior, so rea
> From: Danil ŢORIN [mailto:torin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2009 15:15
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
>
> 2nd point can be simply archived by an optimize (which will read old
> segments and will
nt: 09 December 2009 15:15
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
2nd point can be simply archived by an optimize (which will read old
segments and will create a new one)
But I'm not sure how it handles compressed fields.
On We
iters to 3.0.0
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Danil ŢORIN [mailto:torin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2009 13:20
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
>
> You NEED to update your readers first,
riginal Message-
From: Danil ŢORIN [mailto:torin...@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 December 2009 13:20
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
You NEED to update your readers first, or else they will be unable to
read files created by newer versio
rmatseffectively
>> says that changing the reader first is a better idea for most
>> situations, but I wanted to know if writer first would work for me for 2.3.1
>> -> 3.0.0.
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Weiwei Wang [mailto:ww.wang...@gmail.com]
&g
er first is a better idea for most
> situations, but I wanted to know if writer first would work for me for 2.3.1
> -> 3.0.0.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Weiwei Wang [mailto:ww.wang...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2009 12:21
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject:
Sent: 09 December 2009 12:21
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
I’ve finished a upgrade from 2.4.1 to 3.0.0
What I do is like this:
1. Upgrade my user-defined analyzer, tokenizer and filter to 3.0.0
2. Use a 3.0.0 IndexReader to
I’ve finished a upgrade from 2.4.1 to 3.0.0
What I do is like this:
1. Upgrade my user-defined analyzer, tokenizer and filter to 3.0.0
2. Use a 3.0.0 IndexReader to read the old version index and then use a
3.0.0 IndexWriter to write all the documents into a new index
3. Update QueryPaser to 3.0.0
11 matches
Mail list logo
