vsop-479 opened a new pull request, #13536:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13536
### 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 unsubscr
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13401:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13401#issuecomment-2204763316
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 #13201:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13201#issuecomment-2204763543
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 #13475:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13475#issuecomment-2204763225
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 #13500:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13500#issuecomment-2204763139
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 PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2204533884
> I believe that this could be a problem for cross-data-structure merging
concurrency (which we just disabled, but would like to re-enable soon-ish)
since merging uses `READONCE`. In
uschindler commented on PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2204198800
Not sure about this: We could possibly also modify the general Exception
handler which catches IllegalStateException and rethrow it as IOException. We
do this already for closed inpu
uschindler commented on PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2204070010
Looks ok to me. Maybe ask @jpountz for his opinion; maybe he has more ideas
where we only work single threaded.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respo
ChrisHegarty commented on PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2203889420
loopy testing with `-Ptests.directory=MMapDirectory` all successfully after
several dozen runs.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the mess
uschindler commented on code in PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#discussion_r1662520292
##
lucene/core/src/java21/org/apache/lucene/store/MemorySegmentIndexInputProvider.java:
##
@@ -45,7 +45,12 @@ public IndexInput openInput(Path path, IOContext conte
carlosdelest commented on code in PR #13430:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13430#discussion_r1662412942
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/TieredMergePolicy.java:
##
@@ -522,21 +550,28 @@ private MergeSpecification doFindMerges(
final List cand
ChrisHegarty commented on PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2203199663
> Cool. Seems useful to achieve the goal.
>
> As written in the original issue maybe we should disallow clones, random
access and slices of IndexInput on top of that. This may
uschindler commented on PR #13535:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13535#issuecomment-2203161601
When backporting we need to apply same changes for java 19 and 20.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
benwtrent commented on issue #13519:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13519#issuecomment-2203125856
The only way to find out is to test it. I don't see how your suggestion
would work without trying it out.
Its better to think about what it would be in the unsigned `byte` c
benwtrent commented on PR #13525:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13525#issuecomment-2200120237
> I could update the existing FlatVectorsFormat and write these data
offsets only for when the field is a tensor.
I was thinking something like this. We should dynamically handl
benwtrent commented on issue #13519:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13519#issuecomment-2200052667
My concern for 8 bit quantization is the algebraic expansion of dot-product
and the corrective terms.
For scalar quantization, the score corrections for dotProduct are deriv
naveentatikonda commented on issue #13519:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13519#issuecomment-2197796395
@benwtrent Can you please help me understand the following:
1. In terms of quantization, are we doing any extra processing for 4 and 7
bits when compared to 8 bits ? I
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13485:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13485#issuecomment-2197791716
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
RS146BIJAY commented on issue #13387:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13387#issuecomment-2194731622
Thanks a lot for suggestions @jpountz and @mikemccand.
As suggested above, we worked on a POC to explore using separate IndexWriter
for different groups. Each IndexWriter
mikemccand commented on issue #13519:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13519#issuecomment-2194673340
OK I managed to run `knnPerfTest.py` from `luceneutil`, using `mpnet`
vectors (768 dims) and I think I am also seeing horrific performance for `int8`
but OK for `int4` and `int7`
jpountz closed issue #13522: Query matching difference in Lucene 2 and Lucene 4
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13522
--
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
jpountz commented on issue #13522:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13522#issuecomment-2191601800
Your phrase query has `salle` immediately followed by `manger`, while your
indexed document has `à` in-between, so the phrase doesn't match. You can get
the original behavior back b
22 matches
Mail list logo
