search for: uncompacting

...ld surveys, Census, etc). For each dataset it: (a) downloads the data from the data providers (b) "unzip" the necessary files (c) imports the data into R. For (b), some of the datasets come in .7z and .rar format which ideally the package should unzip (or whatever the correct them for uncompacting these file types is) so that the underlying .txt or .csv files can be imported into R. Not being able to find a solution within R (R only deals with .zip files), we added a Rtools dependency, in order to use Rtools expanded unzipping capabilities on the .7z and .rar files. Is adding a Rtools dep...

...h dataset it: > > (a) downloads the data from the data providers > (b) "unzip" the necessary files > (c) imports the data into R. > > For (b), some of the datasets come in .7z and .rar format which ideally > the package should unzip (or whatever the correct them for uncompacting > these file types is) so that the underlying .txt or .csv files can be > imported into R. > > Not being able to find a solution within R (R only deals with .zip files), > we added a Rtools dependency, in order to use Rtools expanded > unzipping capabilities on the .7z and .rar f...

I came across this benchmark between Xapian & Solr: http://www.anur.ag/blog/2009/03/xapian-and-solr/ According to the benchmark, a doc set that took Solr 34 min to index took Xapian 7 hours. Solr's index is also much smaller - 2.5GB to Xapian's 8.9GB. I'm new to Xapian. Just wondering if results like these are typical? Is indexing speed & size a known issue in Xapian? Or is

I'm trying to compact (or at least merge) multiple databases, while stripping search records which are no longer required. Backstory: I've inherited the Cyrus IMAPd xapian-based search code from Greg Banks when he left Opera. One of the unfinished parts was removing expunged emails from the search database. We moved from having a single search database to supporting multiple

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013, at 03:49 PM, Olly Betts wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:29:16PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > The advantage of compact - it runs approximately 8 times as fast (we > > are CPU limited in each case - writing to tmpfs first, then rsyncing > > to the destination) and it takes approximately 75% of the space of a > > fresh database with maximum