Ah, that's good to know. I've been meaning to restructure the TS site  
for a while now, make it easier to keep the docs updated (perhaps  
through a wiki? Haven't decided yet) - and that tidbit should  
definitely be part of the new information.

Cheers

-- 
Pat

On 24/01/2009, at 12:14 AM, Anibal Cucco wrote:

> Hey Pat,
>
> Just to let you know that we found the problem. I was using Sphinx  
> 0.9.8-release (r1371) and there's something wrong with the merge in  
> that version. Upgraded to Sphinx 0.9.8.1-release (r1533) and the  
> problem is gone.
>
> Thanks,
> Anibal
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Anibal Cucco  
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Pat, I'll continue trying and seeing if I can find out what's  
> wrong. This is the define_index block:
>
>   define_index do
>     indexes [ submitter.name, submitter.email ], :as => :submitter
>     indexes forum.name, :as => :forum
>     indexes posts.body, :as => :text
>     indexes current_tags, :as => :tags
>     indexes title
>     indexes updated_at, :sortable => true
>     has account_id, forum_id, is_public, organization_id, is_pinned,  
> submitter_id, is_syndicated, updated_at
>     set_property :delta => :datetime, :threshold => 15.minutes
>   end
>
> -Anibal
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing- 
> gods.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anibal
>
> That behaviour isn't what we want... I'll try to add some more tests,
> see if I can reproduce the situation, and we'll go from there. I'm not
> convinced with how effective Sphinx's merge is, hence why it's not yet
> implemented with the basic delta approach.
>
> Will let you know what I find. In the meantime, what does your
> define_index block look like? Just as a reference point.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Pat
>
> On 16/01/2009, at 4:22 AM, anibal wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'm trying to introduce the new datetime-driven deltas in my project
> > but something very strange is happening. This is the situation:
> >
> > I create 3 objects 'Topic1', 'Topic2' and 'Topic3' and run a full
> > index (rake ts:index). Then I create another object 'Topic4' and try
> > searching all of them by their name. The sphinx query log reads like
> > this:
> >
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:26:51.152 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 1 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic1
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:26:54.239 2009] 0.001 sec [all/2/rel 1 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic2
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:26:56.320 2009] 0.001 sec [all/2/rel 1 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic3
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:27:02.144 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 0 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic4
> >
> > Which is perfect because 'Topic1', 'Topic2' and 'Topic3' are indexed
> > but 'Topic4' is not.
> >
> > Then I run 'thinking_sphinx:index:delta' to merge the latest changes
> > and try searching all of them again. The query log reads like this:
> >
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:28:10.400 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 0 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic1
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:28:12.848 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 0 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic2
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:28:14.839 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 0 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic3
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:28:17.024 2009] 0.000 sec [all/2/rel 1 (0,20)] [*]
> > Topic4
> >
> > Basically, only the new object 'Topic4' just merged is found but  
> none
> > of the previous objects are found.
> >
> > Just to add more information, if I run an empty query:
> > ThinkingSphinx::Search.search(''), sphinx finds all of them (the 4
> > topics):
> >
> > [Thu Jan 15 18:28:38.544 2009] 0.000 sec [scan/2/rel 4 (0,20)] [*]
> >
> > I was using the old delta mechanism and everything worked fine but I
> > really wanna start using the new approach because is a lot better in
> > my opinion.
> >
> > Hope someone could help me and thanks in advance,
> > Anibal
> >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thinking Sphinx" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to