Re: Exact date search doesn't work with 1.9.1?

On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Perez wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This could be a case of your QueryParser analyzer eating a number. Range queries and prefix/wildcard query terms are not analyzed. Besides the great suggestion to use Luke, also t

Re: solution: RangeQuery with floating point numbers

you may want to look into the way Solr deals with sortable ints/longs/floats/doubles... http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/solr/trunk/src/java/org/apache/solr/util/NumberUtils.java?view=markup ...it leverages the fact that Java will give you the raw bits of a double/float as an long/int

Re: Fetch Documents Without Retrieveing All Fields

first off, i only skimmed the url you posted. i may have missed the point, but it appears to be a description of how to add restricted stored field loading. secondly... : Of course there is no doubt that search in Lucene index is faster but : sometimes the retrieving the hitDocs is slower(for Ex

Re: Lucene and top words query

: I noticed when using the Luke tool that I it provides a set of top words : from an index. What is a programmatic way of doing this? I'm not intimately familar with Luke, so i'm not sure what you mean by "top words" but this utility class might be what you are refering to... http://svn.apache.

Re: I just don't get wildcards at all.

I think I'm almost there, thanks y'all have been a great help. Here are, I hope, my last questions and I'll be all done beating on this Let's claim that all my clauses contain wildcards. What I *think* that means is that I can't very well use a filter "the normal way" since seachers require a

Fetch Documents Without Retrieveing All Fields

Hi All, I found a interesting point mentioned in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~shashank/htmlfiles/hacks/lucene.html by Shashank. Of course there is no doubt that search in Lucene index is faster but sometimes the retrieving the hitDocs is slower(for Ex. when we try to retrieve more than 1 docum

Re: Exact date search doesn't work with 1.9.1?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This could be a case of your QueryParser analyzer eating a number. > Range queries and prefix/wildcard query terms are not analyzed. > > Besides the great suggestion to use Luke, also try a TermQuery if you > happen

Re: solution: RangeQuery with floating point numbers

On Sunday 09 April 2006 13:53, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > Hi all, > ... > > By the way, it is worth repeating the warning that appears everywhere > (including Lucene In Action): while this sort of trick works, RangeQuery > is extremely inefficient (and might not even work) when the number of > diff

Re: Exact date search doesn't work with 1.9.1?

This could be a case of your QueryParser analyzer eating a number. Range queries and prefix/wildcard query terms are not analyzed. Besides the great suggestion to use Luke, also try a TermQuery if you happen to be using QueryParser to create your Query currently. Erik On Apr 7, 2

solution: RangeQuery with floating point numbers

Hi all, As Lucene's documentation explain, RangeQuery (and ConstantScoreRangeQuery) require their key to be strings which are lexicographically (alphabetically) ordered. "Lucene in Action", section 6.3.3 ("Handling numeric field-range queries") explains what to do when you need to range search in

Re: Exact date search doesn't work with 1.9.1?

On Samstag 08 April 2006 04:45, Perez wrote: > Any ideas on how I am misusing the API? Please use Luke to check what's in the index and if that doesn't help, post a small self-contained code snippet here. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de --