Kevin A. Burton wrote:
I finally had some time to take Doug's advice and reburn our indexes
with a larger TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL value.
You know... it looks like the problem is that TermInfosReader uses
INDEX_INTERVAL during seeks and is probably just jumping RIGHT past the
offsets that
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
I finally had some time to take Doug's advice and reburn our indexes
with a larger TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL value.
It looks like you're using a pre-1.4 version of Lucene. Since 1.4 this
is no longer called TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL, but rather
Doug Cutting wrote:
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
I finally had some time to take Doug's advice and reburn our indexes
with a larger TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL value.
It looks like you're using a pre-1.4 version of Lucene. Since 1.4
this is no longer called TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL, but
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
Is this setting incompatible with older indexes burned with the lower
value?
Prior to 1.4, yes. After 1.4, no.
What happens after 1.4? Can I take indexes burned with 256 (a greater
value) in 1.3 and open them up correctly with 1.4?
Not without hacking things. If your
Doug Cutting wrote:
Not without hacking things. If your 1.3 indexes were generated with
256 then you can modify your version of Lucene 1.4+ to use 256 instead
of 128 when reading a Lucene 1.3 format index (SegmentTermEnum.java:54
today).
Prior to 1.4 this was a constant, hardwired into the
