Hi Uwe,
the docIds are these from Lucene. (and all Indexes are built with its
Lucene versions)
So if I order e.g. with 'Sort.INDEXORDER' and I understand the sorting
principle correctly, the following is correct because the aim溝脇しほみ
Term is the first in index:
0 Score=12,2324 Doc.Id=8060 id=709579 name=aim溝脇しほみ
1 Score=12,2324 Doc.Id=227606 id=716893 name=aim
To avoid these problems right from the start, I need to use a different
analyser for indexing? (So that the docs 'aim溝脇しほみ' and 'aim' have
different scores)
Thanks
Thomas
Am 18.07.2011 12:13, schrieb Uwe Schindler:
Hi Thomas,
Just one question: Are these docIds from Lucene or your own ones? And second,
are the underlying indexes also built with the corresponding Lucene versions?
The reason behind: Nothing in Lucene guarantees the order of docIds for same
scores, they can be arbitrary. One change in Lucene 3.3 is for example the use
of TieredMergePolicy, that reorders documents during indexing for more
efficient merging. So when you indexed also with Lucene 3.3 and the displayed
document IDs are your own application specific ones (not the internal Lucene
ones), the different order of search results can simply be caused by the fact,
that the indexer in 3.3 can suddenly reorder the documents during merging
(TieredMergePolicy). There is nothing wrong with that.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rewig [mailto:tre...@mufin.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 12:06 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: TermQuery - ExactMatching, Lucene 3.1.0 vs. 3.3.0, special
character behavior
Hi Ian,
yes the score is identical but the inner ordering of same scores seems to be
different in the versions.
In Lucene 3.3.0 it seems that terms with special characters will be preferred
before the exact hit.
My code is:
PhraseQuery query = new PhraseQuery();
query.add(new Term("name", strQueryName));
//topDocs = this.indexSeacher.search(query, 10);
//topDocs = this.indexSeacher.search(query, 10, Sort.RELEVANCE);
topDocs = this.indexSeacher.search(query, 10, Sort.INDEXORDER);
In all variants there are similar ordering problems even if they do not always
occur at the same query.
e.g. if I order by Sort.RELEVANCE the "queen" Doc problem doesn't occur but
there is a wrong ordering in the token aim (query name:aim)
0 Score=12,2324 Doc.Id=8060 id=709579 name=aim溝脇しほみ
1 Score=12,2324 Doc.Id=227606 id=716893 name=aim
Is there a way to guarantee the inner sorting of same scores? Or how can I
avoid that documente with special characters have the same score as
documente of exact matches?
Thanks in advance!
Thomas
Am 18.07.2011 10:08, schrieb Ian Lea:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. A search using 3.1.0 and 3.3.0
returns the same docs with identical scores, except that one gives
them in order A,B and the other in order B,A? What search method are
you using? Does it guarantee anything about the order of returning
docs with identical scores?
--
Ian.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Rewig<tre...@mufin.com> wrote:
Hello,
there is a index with a lot of docs, 2 of them are:
doc1:
1.Field=id ITSVopfOLB=ITS---f0-- Value= 192
2.Field=name ITSVopfOLB=ITS----0-- Value= queen
doc2:
1.Field=id ITSVopfOLB=ITS---f0-- Value= 701492
2.Field=name ITSVopfOLB=ITS----0-- Value= queen板野友美 (Here
are chinese
characters - hopefully you can see them)
if I search in the index - with a TermQuery there is a different
behavior between Lucene 3.1.0 and 3.3.0 :
Query:
Term:field='name' text='queen'
Result Lucene 3.1.0:
0 Score=13,2132 Doc.Id=176002 id=192 name=queen
1 Score=13,2132 Doc.Id=523407 id=701492 name=queen板野友美
Result Lucene 3.3.0:
0 Score=13,2132 Doc.Id=523407 id=701492 name=queen板野友美
1 Score=13,2132 Doc.Id=176002 id=192 name=queen
The result from Lucene 3.1.0 is that, what I would expect if I do a
'exact matching' Term Query.
Each index was indexed with its associated LuceneVersion.
I tested it with luke and with my own Code - the result was always the
same.
Is it a new feature in Lucene 3.3.0 or a bug?
Thanks in advance!
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
