Re: Multiple time ranges in a document

this came up on the solr list about a month ago and reminded me of something doug mentioned durring the BOF at apachecon last year ... if you are interested in writing your own Query subclass, this thread has some thoughts on how this might be possible... http://www.nabble.com/One-item%2C-multipl

Re: NO_NORMS and TOKENIZED?

On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: FWIW, we support, in our in-house system and in addition to fixed field semantics, completely dynamic field names for some applications, but they have a fixed field type. So, the fie

Re: NO_NORMS and TOKENIZED?

On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: FWIW, we support, in our in-house system and in addition to fixed field semantics, completely dynamic field names for some applications, but they have a fixed field type. So, the field name can be anything, but the attributes of the fi

Re: NO_NORMS and TOKENIZED?

FWIW, we support, in our in-house system and in addition to fixed field semantics, completely dynamic field names for some applications, but they have a fixed field type. So, the field name can be anything, but the attributes of the field are fixed (i.e. it will always be tokenized with n

Re: Search in all fields

Sure. Convert your simple queries into span queries (which are also relatively simple). Then, when you index everything in the "all" field, subclass your analyzer to return a large PositionIncrementGap. Explaining how this works with words is awkward, so doc.add("all", "one two three"); doc.a

Re: NO_NORMS and TOKENIZED?

On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: If I had to do it over again, I'd be tempted to further restrict the patterns so that they could be looked up from a Map rather than linearly. Awesome. I know exactly how I'm going to implement this now. This hasn't proved to be a problem so

Search in all fields

Hi All, I want to be able to do a search for a term in all fields in a document. One way this can be done is to put every element of a document in the default field (or I guess any other single named field) as well as separate fields in which those elements belong. So for example if for my docu

AW: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

Hello Erik, You gave me the clue! I had a toLowerCase on the query. I was in the hard believe that I did not program such things, as I knew the side effect. Thanks alot for your boths help and sorry for the trouble. Mea culpa! Regards, Jamal -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Erick Erick

Re: AW: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Karimi-Tabatabaie Jamal wrote: That means that last query "Lucene OR Query" must be parsed correct to "Lucene query" with the OR operator while default operator is set to AND. Right? But in my implementation with default operator set to AND the query 'Hare O

Re: NO_NORMS and TOKENIZED?

On 2/19/07, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At present, KS doesn't let you do something like that -- you have to define all your fields up front. What I'd like to do is come up with a FieldDef subclass that handles multi-dimensional data. I seem to recall that Solr had something alon

Re: Fields

It's whatever you set it to. From the API... QueryParser public *QueryParser*(String f, Analyzer a) Constructs a query parser. *Parameters:*f - the default field for query terms.a - used to find terms in the query

Re: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

You still haven't provided the data. Here's what Mr. Hatcher needs you to do. Provide a very short program that demonstrates this. It should parse a query and print out the parsed query using ToString. For instance, are you lowercasing the query before parsing? In which case or is not treated as

RE: Fields

Hi Erik, I looked at the QueryParser API doc but I can't seem to find what the default field is. Also, how would the syntax of the index code differ when indexing a word to the default field from this: Doc.Add(Field.Text("album", Album)); Cheers Sachin -Original Message- From: Erick Er

Re: Counting term frequency without using Explanation

Just search the mail archives for the threads mentioned... start at ...http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/ But if all you want to do is count terms, see the termdocs/termenum classes in the Lucene api... But I believe that term frequency is *already* part of the relevance ca

Re: Fields

See below. On 2/19/07, Kainth, Sachin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, I have a few question regarding indexing documents. 1. With my experience of indexing documents with lucene so far I have done things like: Doc.Add(Field.Text("album", Album)); Where Album is a string representing an a

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

I don't know. But I'm curious about the results. 19 feb 2007 kl. 16.33 skrev dmitri: I haven't tried using several IndexSearchers over a single IndexReader. Do you think it can help? --- dmitri karl wettin-3 wrote: What are the effects if you supply the same reader to

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

I haven't tried using several IndexSearchers over a single IndexReader. Do you think it can help? --- dmitri karl wettin-3 wrote: > > > What are the effects if you supply the same reader to IndexSearcher:s? > > 19 feb 2007 kl. 16.03 skrev dmitri: > >> >> I use >>

AW: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

Exactly. That means that last query "Lucene OR Query" must be parsed correct to "Lucene query" with the OR operator while default operator is set to AND. Right? But in my implementation with default operator set to AND the query 'Hare OR Tortoise' is parsed to 'Hare AND Tortoise'! Regards, J

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

I don't think so as sorting in on integer fields - dmitri Paul Smith-2 wrote: > > are you using Locale-sensitive sorting at all? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-806 > > Just wondering if you're seeing the same problem we are having. > > cheers, > > Paul Smith > >

RE: Counting term frequency without using Explanation

Hi Erick, I have a similar requirement to know the frequency of occurrence of a keyword in a given content to find out the relevancy of the article to a set of keywords. If the keyword is mentioned more than once in the article, then I want to treat it as more relevant. Can you please point me t

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

What are the effects if you supply the same reader to IndexSearcher:s? 19 feb 2007 kl. 16.03 skrev dmitri: I use - searcher = new IndexSearcher(indexLocation); - So readers are created under the hood. dmitri karl wettin-3 wrote: 18 feb 2007 kl. 22.52 skrev

Fields

Hi all, I have a few question regarding indexing documents. 1. With my experience of indexing documents with lucene so far I have done things like: Doc.Add(Field.Text("album", Album)); Where Album is a string representing an album name. Now with this sort of indexing what I do is a search such

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

I use - searcher = new IndexSearcher(indexLocation); - So readers are created under the hood. dmitri karl wettin-3 wrote: > > > 18 feb 2007 kl. 22.52 skrev dmitri: > >> With org.apache.lucene.store.MMapDirectory throughput is better but >> I still >> have to

Re: IndexSearcher on multi-core CPU machine

18 feb 2007 kl. 22.52 skrev dmitri: With org.apache.lucene.store.MMapDirectory throughput is better but I still have to create multiple IndexSearcher instances to have 100% CPU utilization. With multiple IndexSearchers search times are better under multithreaded load. concurrent 1 s

Re: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

<<>> Because some documents contain "Lucene" but not "Query" and vice-versa. These results look perfectly reasonable to me too. The default operator is AND, which is why queries 3 and 4 return the same results. When you query on "Query" you get some number of documents (109 to be exact) that ALS

Re: AW: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Karimi-Tabatabaie Jamal wrote: You are right for a little complex query. I tested the following queries serach at lucenebool.com with query "Query" 155 results serach at lucenebool.com with query "Lucene" 270 results serach at lucenebool.com with query "Query AND

Re: Multiple time ranges in a document

The problem arises because there are multiple ranges defined in the document and it is not easy to test the start/end value pairs when they are held as independent values in separate fields. AFAIK there is currently no query implementation for testing position relationships in words from more th

AW: QueryParser explicit and implicit search operator

Hello Erik, You are right for a little complex query. I tested the following queries serach at lucenebool.com with query "Query" 155 results serach at lucenebool.com with query "Lucene" 270 results serach at lucenebool.com with query "Query AND Lucene" 109 results serach at lucenebool.com with