lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DM Smith <>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:23:23 GMT
On 04/15/2010 03:12 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 23:07, DM Smith<>  wrote:
>> On 04/15/2010 03:04 PM, Earwin Burrfoot wrote:
>>>> BTW Earwin, we can come up w/ a migrate() method on IW to accomplish
>>>> manual migration on the segments that are still on old versions.
>>>> That's not the point about whether optimize() is good or not. It is
>>>> the difference between telling the customer to run a 5-day migration
>>>> process, or a couple of hours. At the end of the day, the same
>>>> migration code will need to be written whether for the manual or
>>>> automatic case. And probably by the same developer which changed the
>>>> index format. It's the difference of when does it happen.
>>> Converting stuff is easier then emulating, that's exactly why I want a
>>> separate tool.
>>> There's no need to support cross-version merging, nor to emulate old APIs.
>>> I also don't understand why offline migration is going to take days
>>> instead of hours for online migration??
>>> WTF, it's gonna be even faster, as it doesn't have to merge things.
>> Will it be able to be used within a client application that creates and uses
>> local indexes?
>> I;m assuming it will be faster than re-indexing.
> As I said earlier in the topic, it is obvious the tool has to have
> both programmatic and command-line interfaces.
> I will also reiterate - it only upgrades the index structurally. If
> you changed your analyzers - that's your problem and you have to deal
> with it
Good. (Sorry I missed that. There's just too much in the thread to keep 
track of ;)

As long as my "old" analyzers will still work with the new lucene-core 
jar, I'm fat, dumb and happy with the upgraded index.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message