On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Mathias Lux wrote:
>
> Another thing for not using the the SORTED_SET and SORTED
> implementations is, that Solr currently works with Strings on that and
> I want to have a small memory footprint for millions of images ...
> which does not go well with immutables.
Hi Robert,
I'm basically "mis-using" Solr for content based image search. So I
have indexed fields (hashes) for candidate selection, i.e. 1,500
candidate results retrieved with the IndexSearcher by hashes, which I
then have to re-rank based on numeric vectors I'm storing in byte[]
arrays. I had an
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Mathias Lux wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm basically searching for a method to put byte[] data into Lucene
> DocValues of type BINARY (see [1]). Currently only primitives and
> Strings are supported according to [1].
>
> I know that this can be done with a custom update hand
Hi!
That's what I'm doing currently, but it ends up in StoredField
implementations, which create an overhead on decompression I want to
avoid.
cheers,
Mathias
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Raymond Wiker wrote:
> base64-encode the binary data? That will give you strings, at the expense
> of s
base64-encode the binary data? That will give you strings, at the expense
of some storage overhead.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Mathias Lux wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm basically searching for a method to put byte[] data into Lucene
> DocValues of type BINARY (see [1]). Currently only primitives an
Hi!
I'm basically searching for a method to put byte[] data into Lucene
DocValues of type BINARY (see [1]). Currently only primitives and
Strings are supported according to [1].
I know that this can be done with a custom update handler, but I'd
like to avoid that.
cheers,
Mathias
[1] http://wik
