Hi Marc,
the QueryTimeJoin is indeed very interesting but since the user needs
to mark the "join point" somehow I hope we'll be able to build it as a
new feature (probably with its own new annotation) in some 5.next ?
At this point you seem you have more experience with it, so please
correct me if I'm wrong :-)
On performance, that's actually one of the reasons why I'm so
interested in these other tests I've been spending time one: seems
Lucene 4 is not always more efficient than Lucene 3, so I need to
understand if we're missing something significant.
Sanne
On 20 August 2014 15:13, Marc Schipperheyn <m.schipperheyn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sanne,
Thanks for that extensive reply.
>
> Considering holidays & similar, we should be fully focused on Search
> again next week and first goal is of course to challenge the roadmap
> and see what can be cut to speedup a 5.0.0.Final release.. However
> many users are already using the current previews and I am expecting
> the same from you as you would give us precious feedback as usual ;-)
Yeah, I'd love that. However, I've been having some delays of my own and I
will need to upgrade a bunch of related dependencies in order to move to 5.0
which is a project in itself. It's high on my list but the marketing people
are also breathing down my neck for end user features. You know how it is.
> We're all agreeing that we should rather move some issues out from the
> plan and release early; having said that, which features of Lucene 4
> would you love to see exposed on the API?
I personally really like the Grouping and QueryTimeJoin functionalities and
am using them to great effect through the Lucene API. Also, I'm looking
forward to implementing some of the new suggest / autocomplete analyzers,
but that would prob not need any API changes. I think on the analyzer front,
things look really interesting with 4.x.
Other than that, just very interested in general to experience the numerous
performance improvements that have been made.
Cheers,
Marc