iamsanjay commented on issue #13191:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13191#issuecomment-2006026200
`FloatTaxonomyFacets.getTopChildrenForPath` methods counts the children and
apply the aggregate function for all the child nodes, only IF the child value
is greater than 0.
ht
jpountz commented on PR #13149:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13149#issuecomment-2006375971
> I will try adding a visit() method taking an IntsRef (I believe that is
what you meant @jpountz?).
This is what I meant indeed.
Before merging I'd be curious to better und
epotyom commented on issue #9721:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/9721#issuecomment-2006430761
Thanks @jpountz for [bringing this up as a feature for Lucene
10](https://lists.apache.org/list.html?d...@lucene.apache.org). It would be
great to have if we can build it!
A f
jpountz commented on PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#issuecomment-2006570648
I understand that we need to make changes to account for the fact that
multiple threads may be contributing to the same merge concurrently, but I
would not expect `RateLimitedIndexOutput
jpountz commented on PR #12194:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12194#issuecomment-2006594221
Sorry for the long time without a reply. I had some hesitation about moving
this change forward since it's a big API change and I didn't see much appeal
for it (besides you and me I gues
jpountz commented on issue #13188:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13188#issuecomment-2006649404
Figuring out the right API for this idea sounds challenging, but I like the
idea.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please lo
benwtrent commented on PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#issuecomment-2007100589
@jpountz
> the caller needs to manage synchronization themselves anyway if they want
bytes to be written in the correct order?
The MT safety isn't really around the bytes. I
jpountz commented on code in PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#discussion_r1530384809
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/MergePolicy.java:
##
@@ -136,13 +136,13 @@ public boolean isAborted() {
*/
public void pauseNanos(long pause
jpountz commented on issue #9721:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/9721#issuecomment-2007387101
> Maybe there is a hybrid approach? For example, when concurrent segment
search is being initialized, it can try calling clone() for Scorer/BulkScorer,
but if it throws CloneNotSuppo
rishabhmaurya commented on PR #13186:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13186#issuecomment-2007593466
@jpountz that's a good point. Since we want tolerance to be `iter`, we can
check for -
`pivot - bias <= iter/2` and `pivot - bias >= -iter/2`.
--
This is an automated messag
benwtrent merged PR #13184:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13184
--
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.a
jpountz commented on PR #13186:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13186#issuecomment-2007653367
@rishabhmaurya Actually I'm not comfortable with passing a comparison
function that is not transitive, as with iter=1, this would give 1.2 = 1.6
(since they differ by less than 0.5) and
jpountz commented on PR #13066:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13066#issuecomment-2007674297
> This means we can skip more items with this change.
Indeed!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
jpountz commented on code in PR #13066:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13066#discussion_r1530752132
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/DisjunctionSumScorer.java:
##
@@ -43,10 +47,23 @@ protected float score(DisiWrapper topList) throws
IOException {
benwtrent commented on code in PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#discussion_r1530907881
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/RateLimitedIndexOutput.java:
##
@@ -28,30 +30,30 @@ public final class RateLimitedIndexOutput extends
FilterIndexOut
benwtrent commented on code in PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#discussion_r1531011510
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/MergePolicy.java:
##
@@ -136,13 +136,13 @@ public boolean isAborted() {
*/
public void pauseNanos(long pau
benwtrent commented on code in PR #13190:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13190#discussion_r1531018293
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/MergeRateLimiter.java:
##
@@ -118,24 +118,32 @@ private long maybePause(long bytes, long curNS) throws
MergePolicy.M
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #13157:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13157#issuecomment-2008387603
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 #12862:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12862#issuecomment-2008388050
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
dlavant commented on PR #12249:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12249#issuecomment-2008538507
I think I ran into this issue with (Elastic 7.17 + Lucene 8.11.1).I am
aware that this version of Lucene does not have the fix.
To confirm this, I tried to reproduce the StackO
mrkm4ntr commented on PR #13066:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13066#issuecomment-2008586471
@jpountz Thank you for your review! I fixed the issue.
--
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
rishabhmaurya commented on PR #13186:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13186#issuecomment-2008789628
@jpountz +1 on comparison function that is not transitive could be
problematic.
Do you think, given we are recomputing biases on each swap, that also breaks
the transitivity o
22 matches
Mail list logo
