lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: VOTE: release 4.0 (RC2)
Date Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:21:15 GMT
I mean: "we don't mention system requirements correctly" - sorry

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 1:19 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: VOTE: release 4.0 (RC2)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> +1 to release this time!
> 
> - I ran smoketester on Linux (JDKs: 1.6.0_33, 1.7.0_07, server, 64bit), passed!
> - I used the PANGAEA index (version 3.6.1, copied from our production system),
> ran checkindex on it (both JDKs) passed. Index size and deletions were reported
> correctly this time. I also checked an force-merged PANGAEA index, passed
> also.
> - I used IndexUpgrader to upgrade both 3.6.1 indexes, passed.
> - I checked the output of IndexUpgrader again with CheckIndex, the output for
> the force-merged 3.6.1 index was identical to the migrated 4.0 index (number
> of terms,....)
> - I compared the index sizes of the single-segment 3.6.1 and 4.0.0 indexes: 4.0
> was slightly larger. You have to know that this index contains thousands of
> fields (it allows to search in XML based on XQuery-like, so we have a field for
> every possible xpath of our rather complex XML schema in the index). The
> search speed improved dramatically (because of the separate term dictionaries
> for every field). In addition, so the bigger size is also caused by splitting fields
to
> separate term dictionaries vs. one in 3.6. 4.0 also has more statistics. I think an
> index with 10 fields may be smaller, will try this a little bit later with another
> index
> - I used the demo module to run some text-only queries, they passed.
> 
> On small thing: We mention (in lucene's package), that Java 6 is needed, so we
> should at least mention that in the release notes. We should improve our
> docs/index.(html|xsl) to mention system requirements. Same for Solr. We have
> a system requirements page on the website, but that is unversioned, so we
> should also add a section for 4.0 there. But this is not the way to go. We should
> also mention that Java 7 is the preferred Java version, if you have 1.7.0_01 at
> least.
> 
> Uwe
> 
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 10:11 AM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: VOTE: release 4.0 (RC2)
> >
> > artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40rc2
> >
> > Thanks for the good inspection of rc#1 and finding bugs, which found
> > test bugs and other bugs!
> > I am happy this was all discovered and sorted out before release.
> >
> > vote stays open until wednesday, the weekend is just extra time for
> > evaluating the RC.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message