We have an application that performs searches against a Lucene based index and also against a Windows Desktop Search based index.
For simple queries we'd like to offer our users a consistent interface that allows them to build basic Lucene style queries using the 'MUST HAVE' (+), 'MUST NOT HAVE' (-) and 'SHOULD HAVE' style of operators as this is probably more intuitive for non 'Boolean Logic' literate users. We would not allow them to use any grouping (parenthesis). Clearly we can pass this directly to Lucene, but for the Windows Desktop Search we need to translate the Lucene style query into a more traditional Boolean query. So this is the opposite of the much discussed Boolean Query to Lucene Query conversion. I'm wondering if anyone has ever done this or whether there is a concept mismatch in there somewhere that will make it difficult to do? My thought was that you could take the standard Lucene operators and simply group them together as follows: e.g. (assuming the Lucene default OR operator) Lucene: +a +b -c -d e f would translate to: (a AND b NOT c NOT d) OR (a AND b NOT c NOT d AND (e OR f)) If I put this back into Lucene (actually Lucene.NET but hopefully its the same) I get back: (+a +b -c -d)(+a +b -c -d +(e f)) which I think is equivalent but not as concise! But I have not tested this against a big index to see if it's equivalent and I have a suspicion that Lucene might score the two versions of the Lucene representation differently. But that's probably not an issue provided the Boolean representation is semantically equivalent to the first Lucene representation. Anyone ever tried this before or have any comments on whether my 'logic' is flawed! Thanks Martin -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Translating-Lucene-Query-Syntax-to-Traditional-Boolean-Syntax-tf4512730.html#a12871390 Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
