Hi guys,
I met some trouble in optimizing the index. The index looks fine in Luke
and I can carry out the search in the index. However, when I try to merge
all these seperated files into a complete index. A java internal exception
indicates that the file are too large.The index size is about 40G
Thanks. You were right, in a different spot of the code somebody
hard-coded mime types without
including charsets in there.
Christian
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Lucene knows nothing about mime types, so this is likely a problem
somewhere else in the chain. Have a look at the stack trace to see
w
See below...
On Dec 21, 2007 12:50 PM, Rakesh Shete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> >> I don't see how sorting relates to your problem at all
>
> Could you just explain how is sorting different from boosting?
>
> I have been trying to figure this out. Going through "Lucene In Acti
Lucene knows nothing about mime types, so this is likely a problem
somewhere else in the chain. Have a look at the stack trace to see
where the problem is.
-Grant
On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Christian Pich wrote:
I am getting the following exception when I run our indexer:
Unsupported M
I am getting the following exception when I run our indexer:
Unsupported MIME type (text/html;charset=US-ASCII) type so ignoring:
http://zfin.org/...
It appears if a page Http header does not specify a charset then the
indexer runs fine.
Any help is appreciated.
--
--
I plan to develop a simple web interface for our log search and wanted
something that is handy. Thought Lucene would fit the bill. I don't
understand the purpose of creating lucene or a use case where lucene would
offer any advantage over already existing tools other than that it can be
integrated
Hi Eric,
>> I don't see how sorting relates to your problem at all
Could you just explain how is sorting different from boosting?
I have been trying to figure this out. Going through "Lucene In Action" my
understanding of sorting is that it will kind of second level of ordering
after th
You still haven't explained *why* you want to rerank results. What
is the use-case you're trying to implement? Quite often it's turned
out for me that when I let folks on the list know what the use
case I'm trying to support is, they come up with much more elegant
solutions than I was thinking abou
Again, if you could be precise about what factors will influence the ranking
that would help. Field names, what is wrong with existing ranking order and
some of the thinking about your proposed re-rank logic would be useful context.
In Lucene you have the options for individual query-clause boos
actually i am writing a module to rerank the results, so i want to edit the
file which arrange the results and give them ranks,
or is there any other way i can use my module to rerank the results
markharw00d wrote:
>
> I think you need to describe your "factors" in more detail. Exactly what
> d
OK, I'm trying to adjust to a Mac and my keyboard shortcuts sometimes
lead me to send the mail when I didn't intend. Sorry about that...
So, leaving aside how you form your "similar" query, I *think* you
want to form two clauses, your "exact" and your "similar" and
boost them individually, combine
>From my perspective, index-time boosting and sorting are apples
and oranges.
According to a post from Hoss, index-time boosting is a way of
saying that "Field x in this document is more important than
field x in other documents". Query-time boosts are a way of
saying "I care about field X more th
AUTOMATIC REPLY
LUX is closed until 7th January 2008
most information about LUX is available at www.lux.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AUTOMATIC REPLY
LUX is closed until 7th January 2008
most information about LUX is available at www.lux.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Sumittyagi,
I think you can implement your factors in the scorer to obtain your
desired results.
2007/12/21, mark harwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I think you need to describe your "factors" in more detail. Exactly what
> do you want to achieve for your users?
> We could be talking about
I think you need to describe your "factors" in more detail. Exactly what do you
want to achieve for your users?
We could be talking about any number of Lucene functions here.
- Original Message
From: sumittyagi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, 21 December
16 matches
Mail list logo
