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
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,
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
- Synonyms
-
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
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
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 by