easyice opened a new pull request, #13122:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13122
closes: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13120
This is a similar issue like https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13069,
This exception was not thrown in the previous PR, because `s1` mi
ChrisHegarty commented on code in PR #13119:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13119#discussion_r1497177281
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99HnswVectorsReader.java:
##
@@ -171,15 +172,25 @@ private void validateFieldEntry(FieldInfo info,
benwtrent commented on code in PR #13119:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13119#discussion_r1497494311
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99HnswVectorsReader.java:
##
@@ -171,15 +172,25 @@ private void validateFieldEntry(FieldInfo info,
F
benwtrent opened a new pull request, #13124:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13124
Opening this PR for discussion. I took a stab at
https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12740
The idea is this:
- Add new task executor to IWC & num parallel worker actions
- Ext
jpountz opened a new pull request, #13125:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13125
This is similar to the work we did on supporting index sorting on indexes
that
have blocks, but for index reordering this time.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To re
jpountz commented on PR #13125:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13125#issuecomment-1957338146
Draft for now because it builds on #13125 which has not been merged yet.
When we have support for BP + blocks, then we can enable BP on githubsearch
cc @mikemccand.
--
This is a
mikemccand commented on PR #13125:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13125#issuecomment-1957352374
Yay, I confirmed that githubsearch [picked up that mention of
me](https://githubsearch.mikemccandless.com/search.py?sort=recentlyUpdated&dd=status%3AOpen&dd=mentioned_users%3Amikemccan
mikemccand commented on PR #13125:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13125#issuecomment-1957356548
https://github.com/mikemccand/luceneserver/issues/28
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL a
cpoerschke opened a new pull request, #13126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13126
To allow re-use rather than duplication of the logic e.g. see
https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2248/commits/3cee3e591995520cdfed41a5228a2e01c3b5cc0f#r1485486388
thread.
--
This is an automat
jpountz opened a new issue, #13127:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13127
### Description
This failure is not reproducible, which is maybe not too surprising given
that the test involves concurrency. A few things are interesting:
- This is the same failure I had got o
jpountz commented on PR #13126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13126#issuecomment-1957548055
I'm not too familiar with the Solr code but I see that it duplicates logic
in `setScorer` as well, could it reuse `MultiCollector` directly instead of
exposing the method that combines s
cpoerschke commented on PR #13126:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13126#issuecomment-1957580240
> ... could it reuse `MultiCollector` directly instead of exposing the
method that combines score modes?
I'd wondered the same-ish i.e. `MultiCollectorManager` re-use --
https:
jpountz commented on PR #13124:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13124#issuecomment-1957581351
Thinking out loud: since merge schedulers already have the ability to merge
concurrently (across multiple merges rather than within a merge though), it
would be nice to fully encapsulate
benwtrent commented on PR #13124:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13124#issuecomment-1957696114
> it would be nice to fully encapsulate the merging concurrency there
instead of having two sources of merging concurrency that are not aware of one
another.
To take advantage
benwtrent commented on PR #12820:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12820#issuecomment-1957923215
I have done some more benchmarking and there isn't really a significant
improvement. This is over 500k, 1024 vectors. Getting the nearest 500
neighbors.
Baseline
```
late
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13085:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13085#issuecomment-1958434623
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 #13076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13076#issuecomment-1958434666
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
zhaih commented on PR #13124:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13124#issuecomment-1958716375
+1 to move executor away from the Codec API (altho it's me who placed them
there LOL)
> it would be nice to fully encapsulate the merging concurrency there
instead of having two sou
zhaih commented on code in PR #13124:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13124#discussion_r1498656246
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene99/Lucene99HnswVectorsFormat.java:
##
@@ -152,7 +153,25 @@ public Lucene99HnswVectorsFormat() {
* @param beamW
easyice merged PR #13122:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13122
--
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
easyice closed issue #13120:
org.apache.lucene.search.TestReqOptSumScorer.testFilterRandomRareOpt fails
intermittently
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13120
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use th
wjp719 commented on PR #12782:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12782#issuecomment-1958873159
@easyice Hi， I have doubt that the encoding data result using group-varint
encoding is different from the old way, so is this way compatible with the old
index format data?
--
This is
22 matches
Mail list logo
