lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "janwen"<tom.grade1...@163.com>
Subject Re: Re: Re: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:58:59 GMT
haha

2011-09-07



  

janwen | China
website : http://www.qianpin.com/
twitter : http://twitter.com/loujianwen


---------------------------------------------------------
网易闪电邮(fm.163.com),您的专属邮件管家



发件人: Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
发送时间: 2011-09-07 20:53
主 题: Re: Re: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x
收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org



No, that's a younger, handsomer man than me, Erik Hatcher.... 

Best 
Erick 

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:26 AM, 建文 <tom.grade1986@163.com> wrote: 

> ** 
> ** 
> Erick: 
>   you are the co-author of the lucene? 
> 
> 2011-09-07 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
>      janwen | China 
> website : http://www.qianpin.com/ 
> twitter : http://twitter.com/loujianwen 
> 
> ** 
> --------------------------------------------------------- 
> 网易闪电邮(fm.163.com),收发邮件、快如闪电! 
>  ------------------------------ 
>  发件人: Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> 
> 发送时间: 2011-09-07 19:24 
> 主 题: Re: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x 
> 收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org 
> 
> 
> Oops, I was thinking I was on the Solr list, so forget the history 
> lesson..... 
> 
> that said, the rest of my previous comment still holds, the bleeding 
> edge Lucene code is still trunk, with the 3.x versions quite stable. I'd 
> still go with the 3.x versions for Lucene as well. 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion 
> Erick 
> 
> 2011/9/7 Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> 
> 
> > First, a small background on versions. There is no version 2. When 
> > Lucene and Solr merged, Lucene was on version 2.9 and Solr was 1.4.1 so, 
> > rather than have two different numbers (i.e. Solr 2.x and Lucene 3.x), 
> > Solr skipped 2 and went straight to 3. Now Solr and Lucene are released 
> > jointly and have the same versions. 
> > 
> > OK, that said, I really think that using Solr 1.4x is a mistake at this 
> > point. 3.x 
> > (current version 3.3, 3.4 to be released soon) is a much better idea, it 
> > has 
> > some very significant improvements. It is being used in production at a 
> > number 
> > of large sites, etc. It is quite stable and tested. 
> > 
> > The current bleeding-edge code is the "trunk" version, which will be 4.x 
> > when 
> 
> > it is released (possibly this year, although that's not certain). the 3.x 
> > code line 
> > gets some selected enhancements simultaneously with 4.x, but only ones 
> > that are considered either very safe or necessary. The risky changes are 
> > applied to the 4.x code line. 
> > 
> > Hope this helps 
> > Erick 
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:18 AM, 建文 <tom.grade1986@163.com> wrote: 
> > 
> >> ** 
> >> ** 
> >> hi: 
> >>    We want to use lucene in our website,The team is confued with using 
> 
> >> which version in our project.I google a lot and see the changelog on apache

> 
> >> site.But i did not get a lot more usefule info.I personally want to use the

> 
> >> latest verion of lucene.But i can not persuade the team.Could anyone give me

> >> some info?thanks 
> >> 2011-09-07 
> >> ------------------------------ 
> >> 
> >>      janwen | China 
> >> website : http://www.qianpin.com/ 
> >> twitter : http://twitter.com/loujianwen 
> >> 
> >> ** 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------- 
> >> 网易闪电邮(fm.163.com),您的专属邮件管家 
> >>  ------------------------------ 
> >>  发件人: Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> 
> >> 发送时间: 2011-09-07 06:05 
> >> 主 题: Re: Failed to create text index reader for .frq file 
> >> 收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hmmm, it rather looks like somehow some of your 
> >> index files got deleted from your index directory. 
> >> a .frq file is one of the files that contains document 
> >> frequency information. The fact that Lucene 
> >> can't find _166.frq indicates you've been using this 
> >> index for a while and created a bunch of segments. 
> >> 
> >> There exists a program called checkindex that 
> >> can be used to help figure out the state of your 
> >> index. See: 
> >> http://solr.pl/en/2011/01/17/checkindex-for-the-rescue/ 
> >> 
> >> And if you're using Java7, you should be aware 
> >> of: 
> >> 
> >> 
> http://lucene.apache.org/solr/#28+July+2011+-+WARNING%3A+Index+corruption+and+crashes+in+Apache+Lucene+Core+%2F+Apache+Solr+with+Java+7

> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> What happens if you point Luke at your index? 
> >> 
> >> Best 
> >> Erick 
> >> 
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Nilesh Vijaywargiay 
> >> <nilesh.vijay@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> > Hi, 
> >> > 
> >> 
> 
> >> > I am facing a error while processing a set of data.. the description says

> >> 
> 
> >> > "Failed to create text index reader for .../.../_166.frq (The System cannot

> >> > find the specified path). 
> >> > 
> >> 
> 
> >> > I have never seen this error in the past neither have I seen this file
in 
> >> 
> 
> >> > the index folder ever.  Does lucene take care of this file or we need some

> >> > add-on or third party software for this particular file? 
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org 
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org 
> >> 
> >> ** 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ** 
> 
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message