Mailing-List: contact user-help@lucenenet.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rob.cecil@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CD70DBA5.1EC85%rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
References: 
 <CAKfZ1miPSC+kA8=i-nD=KWZkB255BNdepWHHUs47Zw2_Y1_Jaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD70DBA5.1EC85%rvesse@dotnetrdf.org>
From: Rob Cecil <rob.cecil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:54:39 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CACb34Kg2mYXiuXPQZ1wx0sPuoe8S6JMkOiJZH9ahG7KP4sWwcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340f2d66366104d8773aa5

--14dae9340f2d66366104d8773aa5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Sucks. Who are these Apache guys again? New to the Internets? :)


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:

> The Lucene.Net website is really kinda poor in many regards
>
> Following the general Apache mailing list instructions from
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html should work
>
> So for this list send an email to user-unsubscribe@lucenenet.apache.org,
> if you are also on the dev list send one to
> dev-unsubscribe@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> Rob
>
> On 3/21/13 2:54 PM, "Kyle Jones" <kyle@bucebuce.com> wrote:
>
> >Rob,
> >
> >Actually, that email address is broken. I'm not sure there is currently a
> >documented way to unsubscribe.
> >
> >- Kyle
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Rob Cecil <rob.cecil@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bart,
> >>
> >> How about reading http://lucenenet.apache.org/community.html ??
> >>
> >> "To subscribe to the mailing lists, send an email to *list*-
> >> subscribe@lucenenet.apache.org. To unsubscribe, send an email to
> *list*-
> >> unsubscribe@lucenenet.apache.org."
> >>
> >> Did you try that?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM, <bartsipes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Unsubscribe me from everything for the eight time
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sent from Windows Mail
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: Anthony Rodriguez
> >> > Sent: March 18, 2013 8:10 PM
> >> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> > Subject: lucene.net 3.0.3 indexing spatial too slow
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I have recently upgraded my search code from lucene.net 2.9.4 to
> >>3.0.3.
> >> I
> >> > have noticed a change in the spatial packages and have updated my code
> >> > accordingly. One drawback from the upgrade that I have noticed is much
> >> > slower index times. Through process of elimination, I have been able
> >>to
> >> > narrow the slowness down to the new spatial code that indexes the
> >> lat/long
> >> > coordinates:
> >> > public void AddLocation (double lat, double lng)
> >> >     {
> >> >         try
> >> >         {
> >> >             string latLongKey = lat.ToString() + "," + lng.ToString();
> >> >             AbstractField[] shapeFields = null;
> >> >             Shape shape = null;
> >> >             if (HasSpatialShapes(latLongKey))
> >> >             {
> >> >                 shape = SpatialShapes[latLongKey];
> >> >             }
> >> >             else
> >> >             {
> >> >                 if (this.Strategy is BBoxStrategy)
> >> >                 {
> >> >                     shape =
> >> > Context.MakeRectangle(DistanceUtils.NormLonDEG(lng),
> >> > DistanceUtils.NormLonDEG(lng), DistanceUtils.NormLatDEG(lat),
> >> > DistanceUtils.NormLatDEG(lat));
> >> >                 }
> >> >                else
> >> >                 {
> >> >                     shape =
> >> > Context.MakePoint(DistanceUtils.NormLonDEG(lng),
> >> > DistanceUtils.NormLatDEG(lat));
> >> >                 }
> >> >
> >> >                 AddSpatialShapes(latLongKey, shape);
> >> >             }
> >> >
> >> >             shapeFields = Strategy.CreateIndexableFields(shape);
> >> >             //Potentially more than one shape in this field is
> >>supported
> >> > by some
> >> >             // strategies; see the javadocs of the SpatialStrategy
> >>impl
> >> to
> >> > see.
> >> >             foreach (AbstractField f in shapeFields)
> >> >             {
> >> >                 _document.Add(f);
> >> >             }
> >> >             //add lat long values to index too
> >> >             _document.Add(GetField("latitude",
> >> > NumericUtils.DoubleToPrefixCoded(lat), Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED,
> >> > Field.Store.YES, 0f, false));
> >> >             _document.Add(GetField("longitude",
> >> > NumericUtils.DoubleToPrefixCoded(lng), Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED,
> >> > Field.Store.YES, 0f, false));
> >> >         }
> >> >         catch (Exception e)
> >> >         {
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>RollingFileLogger.Instance.LogException(ServiceConstants.SERVICE_INDEXER_
> >>CONST,
> >> > "Document",string.Format("AddLocation({0},{1})", lat.ToString(),
> >> > lng.ToString()), e, null);
> >> >             throw e;
> >> >         }
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> > With 2.9.4, I was able to index about 300,000 rows of data with
> >>lat/lng
> >> > points in about 11 minutes. With this new spatial package it takes
> >> upwards
> >> > of 5 hours (I've killed the test before it finishes so I don't have an
> >> > exact timing for it). Here is the spatial context/strategy I am using:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > public static SpatialContext SpatialContext
> >> >
> >> >    {
> >> >
> >> >        get
> >> >
> >> >        {
> >> >
> >> >            if (null == _spatialContext)
> >> >
> >> >            {
> >> >
> >> >                lock (_lockObject)
> >> >
> >> >                {
> >> >
> >> >                    if(null==_spatialContext) _spatialContext =
> >> > SpatialContext.GEO;
> >> >
> >> >                }
> >> >
> >> >            }
> >> >
> >> >            return _spatialContext;
> >> >
> >> >        }
> >> >
> >> >    }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >    public static SpatialStrategy SpatialStrategy
> >> >
> >> >    {
> >> >
> >> >        get
> >> >
> >> >        {
> >> >
> >> >            if (null == _spatialStrategy)
> >> >
> >> >            {
> >> >
> >> >                lock (_lockObject)
> >> >
> >> >                {
> >> >
> >> >                    if (null == _spatialStrategy)
> >> >
> >> >                    {
> >> >
> >> >                        int maxLength = 9;
> >> >
> >> >                        GeohashPrefixTree geohashPrefixTree = new
> >> > GeohashPrefixTree(SpatialContext, maxLength);
> >> >
> >> >                        _spatialStrategy = new
> >> > RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy(geohashPrefixTree, "geoField");
> >> >
> >> >                    }
> >> >
> >> >                }
> >> >
> >> >            }
> >> >
> >> >            return _spatialStrategy;
> >> >
> >> >        }
> >> >
> >> >    }
> >> >
> >> > Is there something I am doing wrong with my indexing approach? I have
> >> > cached the shapes that get created by the lat/lng points since I don't
> >> need
> >> > a new shape for the same coordinates. It appears to be the
> >> > CreateIndexableFields() method that is taking the most time during
> >> > indexing. I've tried to cache the fields generated by this method to
> >> reuse
> >> > but I can't create a new instance of the TokenStream from the cached
> >> field
> >> > to use in a new Document (in lucene.net 3.0.3 the constructor for
> >> > TokenStream is protected). I've lowered the maxLevels int to 4 in the
> >> > spatial strategy but I haven't seen an improvement in indexing times.
> >>Any
> >> > feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > Anthony Rodriguez
> >> > Senior Software Developer
> >> >
> >> > Spark Networks<http://www.spark.net> | Igniting Relationships(r)
> >> > 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 | Beverly Hills, CA 90211
> >> > p. 323 658 3000 ext. 8021 | f. 866 945 5209
> >> > ________________________________
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

--14dae9340f2d66366104d8773aa5--