Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-lucene-net-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-lucene-net-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C962ED423 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 79055 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2012 15:33:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-lucene-net-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 78651 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2012 15:33:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-net-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 78632 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jul 2012 15:33:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:33:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=FSL_RCVD_USER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.83.48] (HELO mail-ee0-f48.google.com) (74.125.83.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:33:40 +0000 Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so5001276eek.35 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language:x-gm-message-state; bh=FIltkwA9/iAzunqjrobxq/DAbMzurbGoybmMmq67Ovo=; b=WhI/RUrX/UnUCw3VTHQ3caGfQ1D/F5DmvmcYu5OoeEQkZT6kXFb8q3wDsFlFcc5gaG YP8Vng5lkpOwd2rrjKV1xCmhCWPDJLhuZBnLTahytjOGPvGY0AD7/Kz8xwhLOPJCMRLe 98PO+U61E1P0km7Nq3MbWq/Zn67t4ZsTN+sMPA63zEsjn58P2aacNIXzwggelsEhfM0q U21uXcXZhvezA3TO0ugFsi5mcos3YsOrXaIEsd1EH9bifJLdvUFWM2IiT51NoCC6EsKl E/FiVtOL80PSLF9ZTDt7jH4eAfqfeEVqQZ0m6ISYkJRs2o2CYjYNtNizvYw05EC7D8ZK ENBg== Received: by 10.14.119.11 with SMTP id m11mr9240238eeh.4.1341848000093; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripwin7 ([91.84.25.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u14sm94802541eem.4.2012.07.09.08.33.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:33:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Wilde" To: References: <003501cd5dda$09ba4b30$1d2ee190$@net> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Issue on the cloud Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:32:58 +0100 Message-ID: <005e01cd5de8$1f5ae9a0$5e10bce0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1d5V83B0v0N/E1RSmoD+maDBpuRAAAkYcQ Content-Language: en-gb X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7Eh6BfPjLH8WnWxobysMk0mgmK852jnImRf92L8ljaIiBww7zZcqA/Xz91FioCAQmm06L Thanks Prescott, 1. Does this mean optimise can be called before indexing has taken place, I suspect "yes" 2. Thanks for heads up, I have played around with adding/deleting lots of docs and eventually the deleted files gets removed therefore I can assume I don't need to worry. I have also used Luke to test searching etc. 3. Yes I understand you have used some generics, just wondering if anyone blogged what is new/how to use them etc. Richard -----Original Message----- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com] Sent: 09 July 2012 16:13 To: Lucene Users Subject: RE: Issue on the cloud > > 1. Why is this happening, are we trying to optimise prematurely? > If this is a new index, it's possible that you don't have anything to index yet written to memory. (I think..) > 2. If so then do I need to ever worry about writer.optimise or does > the indexes eventually optimise themselves? > You probably don't ever need to worry about optimizing given the expected size of your index, We'll be depreciating the optimize method in 3.6. > 3. Also I noticed that there is a generics branch but cannot find any > guidance into indexing/searching. I assume that the generics are for > searching, does any exist? > The generics branch is really the same as 2.9.4, except of course we've tried to use generics (such as List etc). =