> I guess the main complaint was that given a set of indexes sharing a
> lexicon, deleting the lexicon and replacing it with another one had
> no effect on the indexes and in fact removes your ability to manage
> their lexicon at all. So you must replace all of the indexes to use
> the new lexicon
> I think that there is at least potential value in sharing lexicons.
> Of course, a down side is that it complicates set up.
This is where I say "YAGNI" and announce that I'll be happy to
refactor the code if and when a real need is discovered.
> On the subject of referencing lexicons by path r
Casey Duncan wrote:
> On Thursday 15 August 2002 09:21 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
...
> I'm not sure what you mean. The pipelining is defined and executed in the
> lexicon.
My mistake.
>
>>I think that there is at least potential value in sharing lexicons.
>>Of course, a down side is that it
On Thursday 15 August 2002 09:21 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
> The original reason to share vocabularies was that multiple fields
> often came from the same human "vocabulaties". The idea was that
vocabularies
> would encompass a number of features including:
>
> - Words (or n-grams) used
>
> - Synon
The original reason to share vocabularies was that multiple fields
often came from the same human "vocabulaties". The idea was that vocabularies
would encompass a number of features including:
- Words (or n-grams) used
- Synonyms
- Stemming rules
- Stop words
- Splitting rules
There was, po
Casey Duncan wrote:
> Anyone care to weigh in with use cases for shared lexicons?
Well, the use case you describe: several indexes with roughly the same lexicon
is the one to watch out for. If you're going to do some quantitative tests on
this, it'd be interesting.
Still, KISS and all that wo