: : I wasn't expect addDocument to close it.
: : I am wondering if there is a reason that rdr should be
: : closed after addDocument, and if there is a way to leave it open ?
: What stops you from using the reader before you add the document to the
: index?
That doesn't really help people who w
What stops you from using the reader before you add the document to the
index?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Beady Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:30 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: input reader closed after IndexWriter.addDocument(doc
am new to Lucene. I don't seem to be able to find the answer to my question
from the archive. I hope to get some help with my problem.
I have :
Document doc = new Document();
doc.add( Field.Text( "contents", rdr );
myIndexWriter.addDocument( doc );
After this point, it appears that rdr is clo
How did you integrate Lucene into MS-SQL server?Are there any plans to
integrate Lucene into databases like Apache Derby? Has anyone been able to
integrate them together? Are there any docs we should look at to get this
done?
On 9/14/05, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to disagree. I run Lucene 1.2 on a Sharp Zaurus PDA with Java 1.1
successfully. It is not the latest version, but basic search is no problem
like this. I am not sure if it compiles with Java 1.1 (maybe not) but it
certainly runs with it...
I am completely sure what you mean with loading. I
Right, we get a different query for each index . You can merge the
results, but, from what I understand, the scores are relative to an
index, so comparing scores may not be meaningful.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/05 10:45 AM >>>
Just some thoughts - no answers.
As the analyser for each ind
Yep, runs great on the zaurus and we got lucene running on an Ipaq 3970
as well (we used the Creme JVM). Not sure what you would need to do
for the Blackberry, PDAs are so different, but I'd love to hear if you
get it working.
christopher may wrote:
Well it is being run on the Sharp Zarus
Well it is being run on the Sharp Zarus PDA's which are running a embedded
Linux so not sure why the mobile J2me would'nt work on a Blackberry.
From: Andrzej Bialecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Blackberry
Date: Wed, 14
Hi all
I have text docs similar to the TREC format some think like this
Full text search with one or more keywords with advanced search
operators to enhance search has to be implemented. Advanced search with
document attributes like author, title, type and Meta keyword in
add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just some thoughts - no answers.
As the analyser for each index is different then the query produced by the
query parser will be different.
I had understand it this way, thank you for confirming it.
It may be that you will have to create a query per index then run
christopher may wrote:
MOBIC has a article listing as follows " Finally a search engine is
available, thanks to the Apache Lucene team." so I am to assume that
this does include blackberry devices. If your not familar with mobic
check out there site at
http://www.mobic.com/news/publisher/view.
MOBIC has a article listing as follows " Finally a search engine is
available, thanks to the Apache Lucene team." so I am to assume that this
does include blackberry devices. If your not familar with mobic check out
there site at
http://www.mobic.com/news/publisher/view.do?id=2913
From: Andrz
christopher may wrote:
Can anyone tell me how I can load lucene on to a blackberry. I would
really like to load it into there JDE and run it on the simulator so as
much help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
I don't think it's at all possible. Lucene requires at least JDK
Can anyone tell me how I can load lucene on to a blackberry. I would really
like to load it into there JDE and run it on the simulator so as much help
you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
-
To unsubscribe, e
Just some thoughts - no answers.
As the analyser for each index is different then the query produced by the
query parser will be different.
It may be that you will have to create a query per index then run the
multiple queries on each index separately. You would then need to somehow
combine
Hi,
when creating indexes I get exeptions like this one:
java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 107, Size: 44
at java.util.ArrayList.RangeCheck(ArrayList.java:507)
at java.util.ArrayList.get(ArrayList.java:324)
at org.apache.lucene.index.FieldInfos.fieldInfo(FieldIn
Thank you for your answer Grant.
I already have a similar architecture than yours, allowing me do
retrieve the analyzer used for a specific index.
But how does it solve the problem of doing one search on multiple
indices using multiple analyzer ?
I'm not sure I was enough clear when asking my
I store an Index (not part of Lucene) object w/ the Lucene index that
contains a bunch of metadata about the index, one being the name of the
Analyzer used (other things include the language of the Index, which
field contains a unique document identifier (not the internal Lucene
id), etc. Then at
We have replaced the MS SQL-server textsearch functionality
by Lucene, and the responses are a lot quicker now.
(we have 8.000.000 records).
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag 14 september 2005 2:33
Aan: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Olivier Jaquemet wrote:
I have many indices, one for each language, each one has been indexed
using a specific analyzer.
I want to search in all my indices, but I still want/need to use the
same analyzer that has been used for indexing.
MultiSearch only accept one query, and if I use for exampl
I always had issues with some browser of mine with this URL which has a
tendency to be mistaken with the bugzilla URL (they only differ in
path) and hence lets browsers provide wrong passwords...
Are others experiencing the same ? I'll request a virtual host then...
paul
Le 13 sept. 05, à 14
Thanks and regards
Neelam Bhatnagar
Good call, Chris.I followed the BitSet comparison route and found that
the custom filter was working exactly as it should, but *I* wasn't passing
it correct data. Rookie mistake.
Doh! I hate it when that happens.
-- j
On 9/13/05, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/13/0
23 matches
Mail list logo
