lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:07:11 GMT
Exactly.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel [mailto:nigelspleen@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:56 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index file compatibility and a migration plan to lucene 3
> 
> 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
> format).
> 
> Did I get that right?
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris


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


Mime
View raw message