ljak opened a new pull request, #13944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13944
Since https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/110, the disjuncts elements of
DisjunctionMaxQueries don't have an order anymore, which is impacting the
`toString` method. In isolation, that does not matter
msokolov commented on code in PR #13872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13872#discussion_r1811235616
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/hnsw/DefaultFlatVectorScorer.java:
##
@@ -88,34 +88,28 @@ public String toString() {
/** RandomVectorScorerSuppl
msokolov commented on PR #13872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13872#issuecomment-2430042116
With the most recent commit I saw these luceneutil/knnPerfTest.py results:
## 1. baseline
```
recall latency (ms) nDoc topK fanout maxConn beamWidth quantized
ind
msokolov commented on code in PR #13872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13872#discussion_r1811229378
##
lucene/core/src/java21/org/apache/lucene/internal/vectorization/Lucene99MemorySegmentByteVectorScorerSupplier.java:
##
@@ -112,20 +96,20 @@ static final class Cosi
msokolov commented on code in PR #13872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13872#discussion_r1811216599
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/OffHeapQuantizedByteVectorValues.java:
##
@@ -127,31 +121,42 @@ public int size() {
}
@Override
- p
iverase commented on issue #13929:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13929#issuecomment-2429888740
I really wish our binary doc values didn't imply that you need to have
everything on heap in order to read them, it feels wrong.
But anyway, I understand I won't happen easil
iverase closed issue #13929: Should we avoid allocating a byte[] upfront for
binary doc values
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13929
--
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
msokolov commented on PR #13910:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13910#issuecomment-2429841476
There is another upgrade path -- if you started with 9.0 and then "upgraded"
your index by rewriting it (eg with IndexUpdater tool) via merge to 9.1-9.7 you
could subsequently read the
msokolov commented on PR #13910:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13910#issuecomment-2429836870
Yes, maybe we should -- I think it would be a one-liner
--
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 #13943:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13943#issuecomment-2429765576
wikibigall with a `searchConcurrency` of 8 suggests that the slowdown is
tiny:
```
TaskQPS baseline StdDevQPS
my_modified_version StdDev
jpountz opened a new pull request, #13943:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13943
`TopScoreDocCollectorManager` has a dependency on `HitsThresholdChecker`,
which is essentially a shared counter that is incremented until it reaches the
total hits threshold, when the scorer can star
benwtrent commented on PR #13910:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13910#issuecomment-2429748958
@msokolov could we do a simpler patch for 9.12.1?
--
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
jpountz merged PR #13941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13941
--
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 #13939:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13939
--
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
msokolov commented on PR #13910:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13910#issuecomment-2429428988
ok something like this:
Dear Lucene user community,
We recently uncovered a backwards compatibility bug that affects indexes
created with version 9.0 containing KNN vector
jpountz commented on PR #13937:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13937#issuecomment-2429119642
There is indeed a small speedup to intervals with a low p-value.
https://benchmarks.mikemccandless.com/IntervalsOrdered.html I pushed an
annotation.
--
This is an automated message fr
jpountz commented on PR #13931:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13931#issuecomment-2429122034
There is a good speedup on nightly benchmarks too:
https://benchmarks.mikemccandless.com/CountOrHighHigh.html.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond t
stefanvodita closed pull request #13740: Have value and count in LabelAndValue
only for TaxonomyFacets
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13740
--
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 t
slow-J opened a new pull request, #13942:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13942
Removing the deprecated parameters, -fast, -slow, -crossCheckTermVectors
from CheckIndex.
Their usage is replaced with `-level` with respective values of `1`, `3`,
`3`.
Follow-up on the depr
slow-J commented on issue #11023:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/11023#issuecomment-2428849956
I'll clean up the deprecated CheckIndex params in Lucene 11.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use
jpountz opened a new pull request, #13941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13941
It is sometimes possible for `MaxScoreBulkScorer` to compute windows that
don't contain many candidate matches, resulting in more time spent evaluating
maximum scores per window than evaluating candi
21 matches
Mail list logo
