lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel <>
Subject Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:56:26 GMT
I have a follow-up question to this thread on Field.Store.COMPRESS in 2.9.1
and beyond.  I'm getting a bit confused between the changes in 2.9.1 and 3.0
so I want to make sure I know what's going on.  We also use old-style
compressed fields and are about to upgrade to 2.9.1.

Is the following accurate?

1) Indexes created in 2.4 with compressed fields can be read by 2.9.1.  New
docs can be added in 2.9.1 using compressed fields, if you don't mind the
deprecation warnings.  Merges and optimizes done in 2.9.1 will preserve the
compressed fields in the same format.

2) Indexes created in 2.x with compressed fields can be read by 3.0.  New
docs cannot by added in 3.0 using compressed fields, since that
functionality has been removed (use CompressionTools instead).  The first
time a merge or optimize is performed on an old-format index in 3.0, the
compressed fields will all be uncompressed (i.e. converted to the new

Did I get that right?


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