lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: speed of BooleanQueries on 2.9
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:17:26 GMT
OK, I'm feeling old today. But do any of you kids out there have any
idea how miraculous this thread is? In "the bad old days", or "when
I was your age", getting to the bottom of a problem like this would
have involved on-sited consultants at $150/hour and about 6 months.
Assuming that the product was still being supported. Or maybe
"you have to pay us a bazillion dollars to get this fix, it's in the new
release".

Here, you get a resolution in less than a week, with support far better than
many "support contracts" I've seen very good money paid for. And we
get it for free.

Just a note to give thanks that "the old days" are gone <G>.

Best
Erick

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, eks dev <eksdev@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>
> > > How do you handle stop words in phrase queries?
>
>
> ok, good point! You found another item for list of BADs... but not for me
> as we do not use phrase Qs .... to be honest, I do not even know how they
> are implemented... but no, there are no positions in such cache...
>
> well, they remain slower (but they work!) the rest will be faster... with
> existing api...
>
> It is maybe even possible somehow to speed them up with it, at the end of a
> day, even for phrase queries, you need first to determine which document
> matches term... But as said, I never looked into this part of code.
>
> I guess one itch will be scratched, if there are no other "surprises" :)
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message