On May 18, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Günther Starnberger wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
The term scorer will give higher score on documents containing both
terms. This is a problem (in our application) since in this case want
the same score on documents a
Från: Günther Starnberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 23:22
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
> The term scorer will give higher score on d
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:53:23PM +0200, Marcus Falck wrote:
Hello,
> The term scorer will give higher score on documents containing both
> terms. This is a problem (in our application) since in this case want
> the same score on documents as long as they contain 1 of the terms
> (since we are d
Well that book is cool =)
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 22:56
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Marcus Falck wrote:
> Where can i read more about the luc
On May 18, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Marcus Falck wrote:
Where can i read more about the lucene sort implementation?
Does there exist any documentation on the sorting except for the
Lucene API docs?
Well, there is "Lucene in Action" which covers sorting in a fair bit
of detail. I hear that book i
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 20:39
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you were aware of the large
Hi
Where can i read more about the lucene sort implementation?
Does there exist any documentation on the sorting except for the Lucene API
docs?
/
Marcus
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 20:39
Till: java-user@lucene.ap
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: to 2006-05-18 20:09
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
> But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
Well, the more RAM you have the better when it comes
I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you were aware of the large amounts of
data that this system should be able to search you woldn't propose the usage of
a database.
Since I have an separate alert service for immediatly alerts up and running i
may be able to do trade offs with the data a
On May 18, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
Well, the more RAM you have the better when it comes to Solr
responsiveness, I'm sure. But, Solr leverages some caching
cleverness so the queries and filters used most frequently are in
But it will still require A LOT of RAM just to cache!
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 17:24
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ?
Yes, but Solr handles the mechanics of warming up a new searcher in
the background to avoid those lengthy first-time hits to the
FieldCache and norms, and it warms any configured caches
Ok.
I just set up a machine running solr and now I will index up a couple of
gigabytes to see the difference in performance (using a sort).
But since my "real" index will be around 2TB in size I don't think sorting is
the right way to go? I pretty sure I will have to modify the ranking.
And yes
Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ?
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 14:57
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Marcus Falck
: Re: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
Yes Erik I'm instantiating a new IndexSearcher for every search.
Then don't :) You only need a new IndexSearcher instance when the
index itself has changed.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Er
Yes I know. But the index is changed constantly.
/ Marcus
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:52
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
>
PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:08
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:52 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
I have slow subsequent searches.
And if i get the cache up and running is it persisted to disc?
No, Lucene's caches are not persist
Yes Erik I'm instantiating a new IndexSearcher for every search.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 12:08
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: SV: Sort problematics
On May 18, 2006, at 4:52 AM, Marcus Falck wrote
On May 18, 2006, at 4:52 AM, Marcus Falck wrote:
I have slow subsequent searches.
And if i get the cache up and running is it persisted to disc?
No, Lucene's caches are not persisted, only in RAM. Are you using a
new IndexReader/IndexSearcher for your subsequent searches? If not,
you're
I have slow subsequent searches.
And if i get the cache up and running is it persisted to disc?
/Marcus
Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: on 2006-05-17 16:31
Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Ämne: Re: Sort problematics
On 5/17/06, Marc
20 matches
Mail list logo
