issues  

Messages by Thread

• [PR] Fix flaky TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix flaky TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Handling concurrent search in QueryProfiler [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix QueryPhraseMap.markTerminal() boost override due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Highlighter QueryPhraseMap boost overridden due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Highlighter QueryPhraseMap boost overridden due to conflicting query expansion [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] deps(java): bump com.google.errorprone:error_prone_core from 2.43.0 to 2.44.0 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Backport #14607 to branch_10x (Index open performs version check on each segment, ignores indexCreatedVersionMajor) [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] BP Reordering Codec [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Should we add bfloat16 support for HNSW? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we add bfloat16 support for HNSW? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we add bfloat16 support for HNSW? [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Blended queries with boolean rewrite can result in inconsistent scores [LUCENE-9269] [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Blended queries with boolean rewrite can result in inconsistent scores [LUCENE-9269] [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Make HNSW merges faster [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Apply HNSW merge optimizations when there are "no deleted vectors" instead of "no deleted documents"? [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Adding support for passing an ExecutorService into DirectoryReader.open() to enable concurrent segment reader initialization [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we rewrite/optimize the HNSW graph in 2nd pass? [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
  • [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix silly inefficiencies in HnswGraph.NodesIterator implementation [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Specialize HnswGraph.ArrayNodesIterator for dense case [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Specialize HnswGraph.ArrayNodesIterator for dense case [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Enable to create PhraseQuery by passing termStates [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable to create PhraseQuery by passing termStates [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Add method in DirectWriter to compute how many bytes are written for encoding a number of values using a number of bits per value. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add method in DirectWriter to compute how many bytes are written for encoding a number of values using a number of bits per value. [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] More structured management of CHANGES.txt [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] # [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] # [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] # [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [RFC] Add Random Access Write Support to IndexOutput [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Disable bypassing graph creation for HnswGraphTestCase#testReadWrite [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Disable bypassing graph creation for HnswGraphTestCase#testReadWrite [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Disable bypassing graph creation for HnswGraphTestCase#testReadWrite [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Disable bypassing graph creation for HnswGraphTestCase#testReadWrite [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] deps(java): bump commons-codec:commons-codec from 1.19.0 to 1.20.0 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] deps(java): bump commons-codec:commons-codec from 1.19.0 to 1.20.0 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] deps(java): bump com.ibm.icu:icu4j from 77.1 to 78.1 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] deps(java): bump com.ibm.icu:icu4j from 77.1 to 78.1 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] deps(java): bump com.ibm.icu:icu4j from 77.1 to 78.1 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] deps(java): bump com.ibm.icu:icu4j from 77.1 to 78.1 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] deps(java): bump com.google.googlejavaformat:google-java-format from 1.31.0 to 1.32.0 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] deps(java): bump com.google.googlejavaformat:google-java-format from 1.31.0 to 1.32.0 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Add fallback support to Lucene104ScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat getFloatVectorValues when there are no full-precision vectors present [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Is there a QuerParser which can parse query string to SpanNotQuery? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Is there a QuerParser which can parse query string to SpanNotQuery? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Is there a QuerParser which can parse query string to SpanNotQuery? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Is there a QuerParser which can parse query string to SpanNotQuery? [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] perf(core): Implement sparse LiveDocs to reduce memory by up to 8x [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] [BlockJoin] Add ParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery to support parent and c… [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery.testAdvance failure [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery.testAdvance failure [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery.testAdvance failure [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestParentsChildrenBlockJoinQuery.testAdvance failure [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Date Tiered Compaction [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Put sensible bounds on quantized scores [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] [backport] NumericComparator: immediately check whether a segment is competitive with the recorded bottom [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [backport] NumericComparator: immediately check whether a segment is competitive with the recorded bottom [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Should we use a SparseFixedBitSet when deletes are sparse? [lucene] via GitHub

• Earlier messages
• Later messages