: So, how can I get the same results using the HitCollector? Also it would be
: really nice, if you could point me to some examples of using it...
Take a look at TopFieldDocCollector It's a HitCollector provided out of
the box that does sorting.
If you look at the trunk, the (recently updateed
Manu Konchady's book on building search applications
is out:
Konchady, Manu. 2008. Building Search Applications: Lucene, LingPipe,
and Gate. Mustru Publishing.
It's available from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Building-Search-Applications-Lucene-Lingpipe/dp/0615204252/
The book's a gentle intro
Hrm.. can we see a more specific example of the type of data you are
trying to query against here?
Matt
Cam Bazz wrote:
well the ? would work if the length of each token be same.
however, instead of A>B>C I want tags that change dynamically from 1 to
unlimited length.
I just I could just pad
well the ? would work if the length of each token be same.
however, instead of A>B>C I want tags that change dynamically from 1 to
unlimited length.
I just I could just pad every token to a normalized length such as
...000A but i am hoping there is a better method.
if we could tell lucene
On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Hi Grant,
My stress test is unable to reproduce this exception, either. I'm
adding Wikipedia docs to an index, using a high merge factor, then
opening a new writer with low merge factor (5) and calling
optimize. This forces concur
which one do you think is faster, boosting at search time or boosting at
index time...
thanks for the reply..
Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> From the Hossman:
>
> '...Index time field boosts are a way to express things like "this
> documents
> title is worth twice as much as the title of most docume
>From the Hossman:
'...Index time field boosts are a way to express things like "this documents
title is worth twice as much as the title of most documents". Query time
boosts are a way to express "I care about matches on this clause of my query
twice as much as I do about matches to other clauses
Hi, I am maintaing a website's search engine, and using lucene.
my job is to give boost to a particular set of pages, like pages about the
Products of the company, Pages giving description of the company, about
technology used etc etc.
How can i start that, I mean i just joined this job and wa
I've started an year ago a different implementation of ParallelMultiSearcher
using a ThreadPoolExecutor where everything is parallelized.
Unfortunately, I had to interrupt this and work on something else, but this
month I'll start working again. Right now there are some dependencies so it
cannot b
I assume you want all of your queries to function in this way?
If so, you could just translate the * character into a ? at search time,
which should give you the functionality you are asking for.
Unless I'm missing something.
Matt
Cam Bazz wrote:
Hello,
Imagine I have the following documen
Hello,
Imagine I have the following documents having keys
A
A>B
A>B>C
A>B>D
A>B>C>D
now Imagine a query with keyword analyzer and a wildcard: A>B>*
which will bring me A>B>C , A>B>D and A>B>C>D
but I just want to get A>B>C and A>B>D
so can I make a query like A>B>* but does not have the > cha
Im new to Lucene (dont they all just say that), and finding it a little
daunting. I am trying to find a way to replicate functionality we currently
have with our database searching to be able to apply it to documents too.
Most of it is just simple matching, but there is one particular part I am
ha
Hi Grant,
My stress test is unable to reproduce this exception, either. I'm
adding Wikipedia docs to an index, using a high merge factor, then
opening a new writer with low merge factor (5) and calling optimize.
This forces concurrent merges to run during the optimize.
One more questio
13 matches
Mail list logo
