Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38668 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 15:20:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 May 2006 15:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 68168 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 15:20:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 67955 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 15:20:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 67944 invoked by uid 99); 18 May 2006 15:20:10 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 08:20:10 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 194.52.12.17 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of marcus.falck@observer.se) Received: from [194.52.12.17] (HELO mail1.observergroup.com) (194.52.12.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 08:20:09 -0700 Received: (qmail 6233 invoked by uid 509); 18 May 2006 17:19:47 +0200 Received: from 10.8.1.20 by mail1 (envelope-from , uid 508) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.85.1/1049. spamassassin: 3.0.2. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:1(10.8.1.20):. Processed in 0.06685 secs); 18 May 2006 15:19:47 -0000 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN-Mail-From: marcus.falck@observer.se via mail1 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:1(10.8.1.20):. Processed in 0.06685 secs Process 6227) Received: from unknown (HELO S1SE1MAIL.emea1.ad.group) (10.8.1.20) by mail1.observergroup.com with SMTP; 18 May 2006 17:19:46 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: SV: Sort problematics Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:19:46 +0200 Message-ID: <8834A84C87A2C148AD46921BB8BFC97C01B28622@S1SE1MAIL.emea1.ad.group> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Sort problematics Thread-Index: AcZ6ijrXFBe+AD7iQGWogBtJvVEFWwAA2QsA From: "Marcus Falck" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ok. I just set up a machine running solr and now I will index up a couple of = gigabytes to see the difference in performance (using a sort). But since my "real" index will be around 2TB in size I don't think = sorting is the right way to go? I pretty sure I will have to modify the = ranking. And yes the data must be instantly available. / Marcus -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr=E5n: karl wettin [mailto:kalle@snigel.net]=20 Skickat: den 18 maj 2006 16:48 Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org =C4mne: Re: Sort problematics On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:22 +0200, Marcus Falck wrote: > Doesn't solr use the same sort implementation as Lucene ? Solr comes with more cache. Is it a requirement that the new data is instantly available? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org