That's how I've heard it pronounced in the US. Emphasis on the second
syllable -- lu-CENE -- kind of like Lucille.
Believe it or not, a quick search yielded:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg04495.html
:-)
DaveG
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
I'm having trouble figuring that out ...
I pronounced "lu-CENE", and I've heard people who
didn't know it pronounce the same way.
But, I got "corrected" into "LOO-sen" one time.
Any concensus?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you for your answer!
> I know the people in Germany pronounce it
Thank you for your answer!
I know the people in Germany pronounce it thatway!
But what's with the people in the USA or United Kingdom?
I'm interested
Thanks in forward!
Bye
Goldschmidt, Dave wrote:
Yes, a lot like "lucy" with an "n" :-)
"Lu" as in the German "du" -- then "cene" with t
Yes, a lot like "lucy" with an "n" :-)
"Lu" as in the German "du" -- then "cene" with the strong "s" as in
"bis" or "es" and then an "ien" sound as in "Dienst" that kind of rhymes
with "Berlin"
Auf wiedersehen,
DaveG
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
today we talk about the pronunciation of Lucene.
So... i'm from Germany.
And the pronunciation of Lucene we use here is like it would be a Frensh
word.
That means we don't pronounce the "e" in the end of the word.
Like the name "lucy" with the add of the "n".
Is this the wrong way to prono
Dalton, Jeffery wrote:
You mentioned that "it will scale well in the future". Does this imply
that it doesn't scale well now?
Absolutely not. I'm saying the practice of storing your documents
outside of a Lucene, is, in general, a good practice to follow. Lucene
is brilliant, but specia
> What are the
> current limitations of the
> Lucene Highlighter? Does does it perform under high
> query load?
The major bottlenecks are typically in retrieving
document content and then re-tokenizing with an
Analyzer - not the actual choice of highlighting code.
I've not used the Nutch summ
Hi,
I have a project seed in my mind.
I will try to collect everything which have a possibility to be
remembered by me some day, and I will index them with Lucene.
Instead of using simple keywords, I will try to index whole documents
wherever possible. So, I can start searching with a simple wor
You mentioned that "it will scale well in the future". Does this imply
that it doesn't scale well now? What are the current limitations of the
Lucene Highlighter? Does does it perform under high query load?
This is just a curiousity of mine, but nutch has a separate Summarizer:
net.nutch.sear
Thanx guyz for your prompt replies.
>>When you want to display relevant text for a search
>>result, find the file on disk, and pass it through the Lucene
>>Highlighter (see the Lucene sandbox).
A nice suggestion but again as i'm indexing mails my Lucene Document has
fields like "Sender", "Subject
What you are doing is a good, scalable practice. You need to store
those email messages somewhere outside of Lucene, and use a unique id to
correlate the two. When you want to display relevant text for a search
result, find the file on disk, and pass it through the Lucene
Highlighter (see th
You can´t. If the indexing is unstored only the indicies of the words
are indexed and you cannot reconstruct the text from the field.
Karl
On 23. sep. 2005, at 13.40, Anand Kishore wrote:
Hi,
I am indexing emails through Lucene. The body of the mails is stored
in an
''Unstored" field. I als
Hi,
I am indexing emails through Lucene. The body of the mails is stored in an
''Unstored" field. I also have a search interface setup which returns me all
Documents matching my query. What i need is to display a few lines from the
body of the mails where the queryTerm was found. How can this be a
13 matches
Mail list logo
