So by me building a new query instead of a filter, I'm missing this caching part? Seems pretty fast to me right now. But sounds like I should use the filter anyway.
Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:04 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: fitler vs query Hoss, come on, where are you - Filters! ;) John, filters are handy for situations where you want to run your query multiple times against the same sub-set of your indexed documents. For instance, if you have Documents that span several years, and want to be able to search individual years, you create a filter for each year, cache it, and run the new query against the appropriate year's filter. Look at the very first line of the very first snippet here (section 5.5.5): http://www.lucenebook.com/search?query=filter+cache Otis ----- Original Message ---- From: John Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Tue 21 Feb 2006 10:31:49 AM EST Subject: fitler vs query Hello, Before I learned about filters in lucene I was building my initial query as a stringbuffer and then I use that with a queryparser. Is there any difference/advantage to separating out the "filter" part of my query into a proper filter in lucene or does it just add requirements the same to the query as I am doing (+field:blah AND field:blah)? --jN --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
