headers
Li Li | 1 Mar 2012 04:21
Picon

Re: Lucene Architecture/Documentation Site (updated)

great website. though I used to Eclipse and it provide good tools for
reading codes, it may be useful when I haven't development environment
outside the office.
a problem, there is no searching function like eclipse's ctrl+shift+t which
searching classes that supporting query like '*Reader'
another one is ctrl+shift+g to see who used this method or object.
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.2.9/ is a similar website. it can find a
function is used by who.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Vineet Sinha <vineet <at> architexa.com> wrote:

> Hey guys,
> We have been getting great feedback from people on this list and wanted to
> let you guys know of major updates that we have made to the Lucene
> Architecture/Documentation site that we have been building. We would love
> more feedback when you guys get the chance.
>
> You can find the site here: http://www.codemaps.org/c/Lucene
>
> You will be able to browse the source of the latest release as well as find
> architectural diagrams there. Our intention is to help you explore the
> Lucene codebase to figure out parts that you might care about. You will
> notice that you should be able do that easily online.
>
> When you get the change, we would love to hear what you guys think of the
> site?  If there any features that we can add to help you guys understand
> the Lucene code faster? Or if we should we just extend the site for more
> projects?
>
> Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Vineet Sinha | 1 Mar 2012 04:39

Re: Lucene Architecture/Documentation Site (updated)

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

Regarding the Code Tab:
Yes. Eclipse provides a lot of the features of the on the tab. We just
wanted to make it easy so that people can send links to one another easily
such as in this mailing list. LXR was a large part of the inspiration of
the inspiration here.

Ctrl+Shift+T: We have found that the browsers Ctrl+F works well enough for
us. Did that not work for you?

Ctrl+Shift+G: When you click on on a method, you will see a drop-down with
a list of callers to it.

We are thinking of adding a small feature so that people can add comments
on parts of the code that they don't understand. So that the project
committers can either explain or just improve the documentation. Would this
be something you would be interested in?

Regarding the other tabs: Did you try them? In particular the Diagrams tab?

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Vineet
--

-- 
Founder, Architexa - www.architexa.com
Understand & Document Code In Seconds

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Li Li <fancyerii <at> gmail.com> wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Li Li | 1 Mar 2012 04:55
Picon

Re: Lucene Architecture/Documentation Site (updated)

ctrl+F don't support fuzzy searching. sometimes I can't remember the whole
long class name. I need something like *MergePolicy instead of
LogByteSizeMergePolicy. it's better if it can tolerate some typo errors

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Vineet Sinha <vineet <at> architexa.com> wrote:

> Thanks a lot for the feedback.
>
> Regarding the Code Tab:
> Yes. Eclipse provides a lot of the features of the on the tab. We just
> wanted to make it easy so that people can send links to one another easily
> such as in this mailing list. LXR was a large part of the inspiration of
> the inspiration here.
>
> Ctrl+Shift+T: We have found that the browsers Ctrl+F works well enough for
> us. Did that not work for you?
>
> Ctrl+Shift+G: When you click on on a method, you will see a drop-down with
> a list of callers to it.
>
> We are thinking of adding a small feature so that people can add comments
> on parts of the code that they don't understand. So that the project
> committers can either explain or just improve the documentation. Would this
> be something you would be interested in?
>
> Regarding the other tabs: Did you try them? In particular the Diagrams tab?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Vineet Sinha | 1 Mar 2012 05:08

Re: Lucene Architecture/Documentation Site (updated)

Good point. We will add that to our todo list.

-Vineet

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Li Li <fancyerii <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> ctrl+F don't support fuzzy searching. sometimes I can't remember the whole
> long class name. I need something like *MergePolicy instead of
> LogByteSizeMergePolicy. it's better if it can tolerate some typo errors
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Vineet Sinha <vineet <at> architexa.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for the feedback.
> >
> > Regarding the Code Tab:
> > Yes. Eclipse provides a lot of the features of the on the tab. We just
> > wanted to make it easy so that people can send links to one another
> easily
> > such as in this mailing list. LXR was a large part of the inspiration of
> > the inspiration here.
> >
> > Ctrl+Shift+T: We have found that the browsers Ctrl+F works well enough
> for
> > us. Did that not work for you?
> >
> > Ctrl+Shift+G: When you click on on a method, you will see a drop-down
> with
> > a list of callers to it.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sudarshan Gaikaiwari | 1 Mar 2012 08:20
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

How to add DocValues Field to a document in an optimal manner.

Hi

https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-trunk/javadoc/core/org/apache/lucene/document/DocValuesField.html

The documentation at the above link indicates that the optimal way to
add a DocValues field is to create it once and change the value as we
are indexing multiple documents.
It also mentions that the Document should be created only once and re-used.

Does this mean that the optimal way of adding non DocValues fields for now is

doc.removeField(fieldName);
doc.add(new Field(fieldName, newValue, fieldType);

If this is the pattern that users should follow while creating
documents, would it be possible to augment the Document class to do
this in a single method?

regards
Sudarshan

--

-- 
Sudarshan Gaikaiwari
www.sudarshan.org
sudarshan <at> acm.org
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Trejkaz | 1 Mar 2012 08:34
Gravatar

Re: How to add DocValues Field to a document in an optimal manner.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Sudarshan Gaikaiwari <sudarshan <at> acm.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-trunk/javadoc/core/org/apache/lucene/document/DocValuesField.html
>
> The documentation at the above link indicates that the optimal way to
> add a DocValues field is to create it once and change the value as we
> are indexing multiple documents.
> It also mentions that the Document should be created only once and re-used.
>
> Does this mean that the optimal way of adding non DocValues fields for now is
>
> doc.removeField(fieldName);
> doc.add(new Field(fieldName, newValue, fieldType);

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to reuse *all* Field instances, for
optimum performance.

Though admittedly this is quite tricky to do right if you have
multiple fields with the same name in the document where the number of
fields might change for each document you add.

If you only have one of each, just add all the fields to the document
once and keep a reference to them, then just set the value on each
before doing your addDocument.

TX
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ganesh | 1 Mar 2012 09:59
Picon
Favicon

Lucene performance in 64 Bit

Hello all,

Is anyone tried Lucene in 64 Bit. Please share your experience about its performance, how big your database
size and RAM? 

Regards
Ganesh
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Li Li | 1 Mar 2012 10:33
Picon

Re: Lucene performance in 64 Bit

I think many users of lucene use large memory because 32bit system's memory
is too limited(windows 1.5GB, Linux 2-3GB). the only noticable thing is *
Compressed* *oops* . some says it's useful, some not. you should give it a
try.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Ganesh <emailgane <at> yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Is anyone tried Lucene in 64 Bit. Please share your experience about its
> performance, how big your database size and RAM?
>
> Regards
> Ganesh
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe <at> lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help <at> lucene.apache.org
>
>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Damerian | 1 Mar 2012 14:12
Picon

Re: QueryParser strange behavior

Hello again!
First of all thank you again for replying my amateur questions.
I would like to rephrase my question because now what i described is not 
the case and its not a problem of input methods.

I have made my custom analyzer which when indexing e.g the phrase "The 
quick Brown Fox"
will produce the following tokens
[The]
[quick]
[Brown Fox]

when i use exactly the same analyser to construct a search query i get 
the following result:
"With ProperNameAnalyzerThe quick Brown Fox parses to The quick Brown 
Fox query: contents:The contents:quick contents:Brown contents:Fox"
which means that the analyzer fails to combine Brown and Fox into one 
token and make it a single term for the search as expected.
Any insights on this?
Once again thank you for your time and patience.

Στις 28/2/2012 11:51 πμ, ο/η Ian Lea έγραψε:
> Then I don't know.  Something trivial like white space?  What does
> line.equals("Jesus Christ") say?
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Ian Lea | 1 Mar 2012 15:08
Picon

Re: QueryParser strange behavior

Not a clue.  I suggest you post a small, complete and self-contained
(no external dependencies) program or test case that demonstrates the
problem.  And your analyzer.

--
Ian.

2012/3/1 Damerian <dameriangr <at> gmail.com>:
> Hello again!
> First of all thank you again for replying my amateur questions.
> I would like to rephrase my question because now what i described is not the
> case and its not a problem of input methods.
>
> I have made my custom analyzer which when indexing e.g the phrase "The quick
> Brown Fox"
> will produce the following tokens
> [The]
> [quick]
> [Brown Fox]
>
> when i use exactly the same analyser to construct a search query i get the
> following result:
> "With ProperNameAnalyzerThe quick Brown Fox parses to The quick Brown Fox
> query: contents:The contents:quick contents:Brown contents:Fox"
> which means that the analyzer fails to combine Brown and Fox into one token
> and make it a single term for the search as expected.
> Any insights on this?
> Once again thank you for your time and patience.
>
> Στις 28/2/2012 11:51 πμ, ο/η Ian Lea έγραψε:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane