Re: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-11-02 Thread Dennis Gearon
from 'http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4501&tag=nl.e036' EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. - Original Message From: Toke Eskildsen To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" Sent: Mon, November 1, 2010 11:45:34 PM Subject: RE: Ensuring stable times

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-11-01 Thread Toke Eskildsen
Dennis Gearon [gear...@sbcglobal.net] wrote: > how about a timrstamp with either a GUID appended on the end of it? Since long (8 bytes) is the largest atomic type supported by Java, this would have to be represented as a String (or rather BytesRef) and would take up 4 + 32 bytes + 2 * 4 bytes f

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-11-01 Thread Dennis Gearon
;http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4501&tag=nl.e036' EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. --- On Sun, 10/31/10, Toke Eskildsen wrote: > From: Toke Eskildsen > Subject: RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering > To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-31 Thread Toke Eskildsen
Dennis Gearon [gear...@sbcglobal.net] wrote: > Even microseconds may not be enough on some really good, fast machine. True, especially since the timer might not provide microsecond granularity although the returned value is in microseconds. However, an unique timestamp generator should keep trac

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-31 Thread Dennis Gearon
;http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4501&tag=nl.e036' EARTH has a Right To Life, otherwise we all die. --- On Sun, 10/31/10, Toke Eskildsen wrote: > From: Toke Eskildsen > Subject: RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering > To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"

Re: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-31 Thread Michael Sokolov
Hmm - personally, I wouldn't want to rely on timestamps as a unique-id generation scheme. Might we not one day want to have distributed parallel indexing that merges lazily? Keeping timestamps unique and in sync across multiple nodes would be a tough requirement. I would be happy simply havin

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-31 Thread Toke Eskildsen
Lance Norskog [goks...@gmail.com] wrote: > It would be handy to have an auto-incrementing date field, so that > each document would get a unique number and the timestamp would then > be the unique ID of the document. If someone want to implement this, I'll just note that the granilarity of Solr d

Re: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-31 Thread Erick Erickson
gt; >> I > >> commit after each insert. > >> > >> Is that expected? I could create my own timestamp values easily enough, > >> but > >> would just as soon not do so if I could use a pre-existing feature that > >> seems tailor-made. >

Re: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-30 Thread Lance Norskog
t; > -----Original Message- >> > From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:soko...@ifactory.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:55 PM >> > To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' >> > Subject: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering >> > >> > I'm

Re: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-30 Thread Erick Erickson
I could use a pre-existing feature that > seems tailor-made. > > -Mike > > > -Original Message- > > From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:soko...@ifactory.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:55 PM > > To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' > >

RE: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-28 Thread Michael Sokolov
, 2010 9:55 PM > To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' > Subject: Ensuring stable timestamp ordering > > I'm curious what if any guarantees there are regarding the > "timestamp" field that's defined in the sample solr > schema.xml. Just for completeness, the definition is: >

Ensuring stable timestamp ordering

2010-10-28 Thread Michael Sokolov
I'm curious what if any guarantees there are regarding the "timestamp" field that's defined in the sample solr schema.xml. Just for completeness, the definition is: