lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl>
Subject Re: Lucene 3.0.3 with debug information
Date Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:19:12 GMT
Instead of profiling, provide some more info about the following:

- what are the problematic (slow) queries -- are they generated from the
code, are they parsed from text? What are they? Certain query types are
slow(er) than other query types.

- what is the index built from? Natural language (text)? Something else?

If you describe the above folks may tell you right away why your queries are
slow -- people on this list continue to amaze me with the insight they have
even without looking at the code ;)

Dawid

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Paul Taylor <paul_t100@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>  On 29/04/2011 15:17, Dawid Weiss wrote:
>
>
>
>  > lucene/Search that is taking the time, I also had another attempt using
>> luke
>> > but find it incredibly buggy and of little use
>>
>
>  Can you expand on this too? What kind of "incredible bugs" did you see?
> Without feedback there is little progress, so bug reports count.
>
> Dawid
>
> Sorry, I'll withdraw that. I was getting all kinds of stacktraces and
> exceptions when I tried to do searches but the problem was my fault. Because
> I wanted to use my own analyzer  I had a shells script that added it to the
> classpath when I ran luke, however I had put it before the ant jar and my
> jar built with maven also included lucene 3.0.3 and because luke 1.0.1 is
> packaged with 3.0.0 it was confusing it, but I didnt realize this until I
> notice done exception complained a lucene method was missing.
>
> But having got it working I cannot see anything to help me work out why the
> queries are taking too long, is it useful for this or just for refining your
> queries ?
>
> Paul
>

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