uschindler commented on PR #13052:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13052#issuecomment-1915825022
Maybe put a comment here describing why foreach is faster, especially
because merging will always produce smaller sets so always triggering slow path.
@jpountz what do you think
uschindler commented on PR #13052:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13052#issuecomment-1915822328
I think we should apply this PR. When merging, Lucene always has a larger
set before the merge so the new set set is always smaller. So
`AbstractSet#removeAll` will always use the slo
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12831:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12831#issuecomment-1915807375
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12882:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12882#issuecomment-1915807209
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If
the PR is waiting for review, notify the d...@lucene.apache.org list. Thank you
for your contributi
uschindler commented on code in PR #13039:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13039#discussion_r1470388288
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/tokenattributes/PayloadAttributeImpl.java:
##
@@ -62,8 +62,7 @@ public boolean equals(Object other) {
retu
uschindler commented on code in PR #13039:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13039#discussion_r1470387185
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/tokenattributes/PayloadAttributeImpl.java:
##
@@ -62,8 +62,7 @@ public boolean equals(Object other) {
retu
uschindler commented on PR #13052:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13052#issuecomment-1915775381
I am not sure if I like this code. Unfortunately the spec of
`Set#removeAll()` is a bit stupid and should only use `argument.contains()` if
it is a set (so almost constant contains is
uschindler commented on PR #13051:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13051#issuecomment-1915761017
When backporting this to Lucene 9.x, it confliced because the sets have
different contents in older version. I fixed this.
Nevertheless, the static final constants should be unm
uschindler merged PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler merged PR #13050:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13050
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler merged PR #13051:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13051
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler merged PR #13049:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13049
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler merged PR #13047:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13047
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler merged PR #13038:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13038
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.
uschindler commented on PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#issuecomment-1915682882
Looks fine. Have you added all PR numbers that were merged today and the
ones I approved already? I will merge them soon.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servic
sabi0 commented on PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#issuecomment-1915656350
I hope I understood your suggestions with CHANGES.txt right. Please let me
know if I should change something there.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respon
uschindler commented on PR #13038:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13038#issuecomment-1915649179
Thanks for this. The code also has safety problems. If the concatted text
para contain percent signs it would break. So format strings should never ever
be constructed with variables
uschindler commented on PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#issuecomment-1915623346
It would be nice to have a changes entry in `CHANGES.txt`. You can add it to
9.10 section and I will cherry pick the changes in Lucene 9.x.
As you have more open PRs with cleanu
sabi0 opened a new pull request, #13053:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13053
- removed redundant field initializers
- fixed a typo in the field name: `minimumMatching_m_Elements`
- removed redundant `instanceof` checks
- replaced type casts with a pattern variable
- c
sabi0 commented on code in PR #13039:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13039#discussion_r1470102508
##
lucene/queryparser/src/java/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/flexible/standard/processors/AnalyzerQueryNodeProcessor.java:
##
@@ -107,10 +105,9 @@ public QueryNode proce
sabi0 commented on PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#issuecomment-1915392997
I've added my name to the GitHub profile. And will review the PRs to
describe the reasoning.
-Dmitry
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
sabi0 commented on code in PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#discussion_r1470080459
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/internal/vectorization/VectorizationProvider.java:
##
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static VectorizationProvider lookup(boolean testMode)
jmazanec15 commented on issue #12615:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12615#issuecomment-1915207682
@kevindrosendahl This is really cool! I had a couple questions around
product quantization implementation. I see in
[VectorSandboxVamanaVectorsWriter](https://github.com/kevi
uschindler commented on PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#issuecomment-1915203166
For your cleanup pull requests to be merged, please make sure to add a
description to your issue, why those changes are useful.
I agree to merge this (any some of your other PRs
uschindler commented on code in PR #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048#discussion_r1469932148
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/internal/vectorization/VectorizationProvider.java:
##
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static VectorizationProvider lookup(boolean test
mikemccand commented on code in PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#discussion_r1469886161
##
lucene/backward-codecs/src/test/org/apache/lucene/backward_index/TestIndexUpgradeBackwardsCompatibility.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache
dweiss commented on PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#issuecomment-1915017690
Oh, one more problem is that you can't "see" the structure of tests before
you actually run them (in an IDE). Don't know how much of an issue this is in
practice but it's impossible to so
dweiss commented on PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#issuecomment-1915011660
I like it. Whenever there is test repetition that can be driven by data, it
should be driven by data.
The only downside to using ParametersFactory is that it's something that is
i
sabi0 opened a new pull request, #13052:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13052
When list size is greater `list.contains()` will be called for each set
element.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and us
sabi0 opened a new pull request, #13049:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13049
(no comment)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mai
sabi0 opened a new pull request, #13048:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13048
### Description
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To uns
jpountz merged PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apa
jpountz commented on code in PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#discussion_r1469520708
##
lucene/backward-codecs/src/test/org/apache/lucene/backward_index/TestBinaryBackwardsCompatibility.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software
osnatShomrony commented on issue #10419:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10419#issuecomment-1914640685
With the new requirement of PCI 4.0 that disk encryption cannot be the only
protection for data at rest, this contribution becomes very crucial, is there
any progress with thi
osnatShomrony commented on issue #8023:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/8023#issuecomment-1914638272
With the new requirement of PCI 4.0 that disk encryption cannot be the only
protection for data at rest, this contribution becomes very crucial, is there
any progress with this
mrkm4ntr commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914637603
Added, thanks.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To
osnatShomrony commented on issue #3304:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/3304#issuecomment-1914637568
With the new requirement of PCI 4.0 that disk encryption cannot be the only
protection for data at rest, this contribution becomes very crucial, is there
any progress with this
benwtrent commented on issue #12627:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12627#issuecomment-1914618652
I have done this test back in Lucene 9.4, and we still end up every once in
a while a graph where the mean number of connections hovers around `1` and
whose connectedness is very
s1monw commented on code in PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#discussion_r1469520535
##
lucene/backward-codecs/src/test/org/apache/lucene/backward_index/TestIndexUpgradeBackwardsCompatibility.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Sof
s1monw commented on code in PR #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046#discussion_r1469519342
##
lucene/backward-codecs/src/test/org/apache/lucene/backward_index/TestDVUpdateBackwardsCompatibility.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Softwar
s1monw opened a new pull request, #13046:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13046
After working on #12829 I was quite surprised about the complexity our BWC
have and how ancient the appear compared to the rest of our test suite. I took
a step back and tired to modernize the tests t
jpountz commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914443248
Yes please.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsu
jfreden commented on PR #13036:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13036#issuecomment-1914370159
Thanks for the review!
Great ideas! I will work on adding a simple heuristic and caching the
`TermState`.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
T
mrkm4ntr commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914355141
Thanks. 9.10 as well?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific commen
jpountz commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914335779
The change looks good to me, can you add a CHANGES entry?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL
jpountz commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914332845
OK, I see, it's about conjunctions within disjunctions. Thanks for
explaining.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
jpountz commented on PR #13036:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13036#issuecomment-1914327764
This is a great speedup on `CountOrHighMed`! Too bad it's not faster all the
time, though I'm not too surprised as conjunctions have more overhead than
disjunctions when all clauses have
mrkm4ntr commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914318228
For this case. Suppose ScorerA, B, and C can return valid maxScore. If the
ScorerD is dominant, larger minCompetitiveScore is set to WANDScorer. But
ConjunctionScorer returns Infinity a
jfreden commented on PR #13036:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13036#issuecomment-1914220139
Output from luceneutil.
**The count tasks:**
```
TaskQPS baseline StdDevQPS
my_modified_version StdDevPct diff p-value
jpountz commented on issue #13022:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13022#issuecomment-1914190216
> but the main reason may be doStall takes longer with data growing
This sounds plausible. FWIW I don't think that anyone actually performed
testing on a modern HDD, values gr
jpountz closed issue #13022: What if we pick up segments in segment size's
ascending order in TieredMergePolicy.doFindMerges?
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13022
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
jpountz merged PR #13040:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13040
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apa
jpountz merged PR #13042:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13042
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apa
jpountz commented on PR #13042:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13042#issuecomment-1914176269
Thanks, eagerly evaluating all conditions looks unintended indeed.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and us
jpountz merged PR #13031:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13031
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apa
jpountz commented on PR #13043:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13043#issuecomment-1914167175
Thanks for looking into this, can you explain what kind of queries perform
better with this change?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the messa
56 matches
Mail list logo
