Erik Hatcher writes:
> >
> > There are some information retrieval settings which tend to say that
> > things that appear early in the document should be considered with
> > greater score... is there nothing such in Lucene's scoring ?
>
> No, Lucene doesn't have that feature, at least not explici
On Apr 26, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Le 26 avr. 05, à 15:00, Erik Hatcher a écrit :
I am not sure how Lucenes uses the placement information, but in the
described case where I concatenate all my features to a
whitespace-delimited text, I fear that Lucene uses the placement of
features
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I don't think at this point anything structural has been proposed as
different between 1.9 and 2.0.
Are any of Paul Elschot's query and scorer changes being considered for 2.0?
1.9 and 2.0 will be what's in the SVN trunk. Many of Paul's changes
have already been committed. Ar
> I don't think at this point anything structural has been proposed as
> different between 1.9 and 2.0.
Are any of Paul Elschot's query and scorer changes being considered for 2.0?
-Yonik
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
If I understand well... it would be easy to do so if you do not wish to
use phrase matches... you could just add a field (with the same name)
for each token...
I think that, if you wish phrase-matches (or the span-ones) then Lucene
can't help you... but I'm quite a newbie on this topic.
Is the
Le 26 avr. 05, à 15:00, Erik Hatcher a écrit :
I am not sure how Lucenes uses the placement information, but in the
described case where I concatenate all my features to a
whitespace-delimited text, I fear that Lucene uses the placement of
features in this made-up text and comes to some wrong concl
On Apr 26, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:
How can I send the modified sources? Do they have to be checked?
Submit patches in unified diff format to Lucene's issue tracking system
- see the links on the Lucene site.
And 1.9 is going to be backwards compatible, but 2.0?
The go
Because we now have the e-mail lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I want to clarify their purpose. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
where we discuss the Java implementation of Lucene. The [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list is for discussions that are about the Lucene top-level Apache
project that do not
I have checked the documentation if interned.. I didn`t knew it existed
:)
So my previous post has no value anymore..
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 16:04
Aan: java-user@lucene.apache.org
CC: Lucene Users List
Onder
How do you mean? If I create two terms, with the public constructor:
Term t1 = new Term(new String("foo"),"bar");
Term t2 = new Term(new String("foo"),"bar");
The result of t1.equals(t2) will be false..
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden:
Term.field is interned, so equals() isn't needed.
-Yonik
On 4/26/05, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Term other = (Term) o;
> return field.equals(other.field) &&
> text.equals(other.text);
> }
> Third: if the field values of re
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 15:44
Aan: 'Daniel Naber'
Onderwerp: RE: CVS Lucene 2.0
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 15:36
Aan: Peter Veentjer
I have found the previous discussions on multi word synonyms as as well as
the section on synonym injection in Hatcher's book, but have not been able
to come up with a satisfactory solution. I am indexing text that has several
multi word synonyms. Some of the synonyms may have single words as on
How can I send the modified sources? Do they have to be checked?
And 1.9 is going to be backwards compatible, but 2.0? Are only
deprecated methods removed or can the structure be subject of change
also?
Btw:
I would like to improve the MultiFieldQueryParser. The code is strange..
It looks like t
On Apr 26, 2005, at 3:21 AM, Daniel Stephan wrote:
lets see if somebody listens on this list :-D
I doubt many are on this list, yet. But your question is probably best
asked on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list rather than here. I'll CC java-user
this time to loop those folks in.
I wonder if the foll
Thanks for the quick reply.
As I supposed, the answer was right in front of me. To build a query
as the one I wanted I have to use the BooleanQuery class:
Term term1 = new Term("field1", "Policy planning");
Term term2 = new Term("field1", "Newspapers");
Term term3 = new Te
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:18:22PM +1000, Ben wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is it possible to delete a set of documents where they match certain
> conditions? I would like to delete a set of articles that belong to a
> given user within a category.
just build a query reflecting your criteria (e.g. a BooleanQue
17 matches
Mail list logo
