(switching to java-user)
OK, that's great that it's so reproducable.
To rule out a JVM bug, it would be great if you could try out Sun's
1.6.0_03 to see if it still happens.
-Yonik
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Ian Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to be able to reproduce this very e
Thanks for your comments Doron. I found the earlier discussions on the dev list
(21/12/06), where this issue is discussed - my use case is similar to Nadav Har'El.
Implementing payloads via Tokens explicitly prevents the use of payloads for
untokenized fields, as they only support field.string
AlexElba wrote:
Hello I am trying to search for or(Oregon) even when it is not capitalized it
is not returning any results.
How to search for 'or' ?
It sounds like you might have indexed with English stop words, as "or"
is certainly in that list.
Trivial way to check is to search for "the".
Sergey,
Based on a recent discussion I posted:
http://www.nabble.com/Searching-Tokenized-x-Un_tokenized-td18882569.html
, you cannot use Un_Tokenized because you can't have any analyzer run
thorugh it.
My suggestion, use a tokenized filed and a custom made Analyzer.
Haven't figure out all the det
Hello I am trying to search for or(Oregon) even when it is not capitalized it
is not returning any results.
How to search for 'or' ?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-search-for-OR-tp18990623p18990623.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nab
Hi.
Got a very basic lucene/nutch question.
Assume I have a page that has a form. Within the form are a number of
select/drop-down boxes/etc... In this case, each object would comprise a
variable which would form part of the query string as defined in the form
action. Is there a way for lucene/nu
test
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is true of Lucene today, with one exception: if an
add/updateDocument call hits an exception it's possible it consumed a
docID (which is immediately marked as deleted). This will cause your
index to have deletions.
I don't think this behavior is guaranteed in future releases of Lucene.
Mike
What are you trying to do with the regex? And why is it
appropriate to the Lucene list? What is a segment and how
does it relate to Lucene?
It would really help if you showed us some example input
and what transformation you are trying to implement with
your regex. If it's a pure regex question yo
I have a small problem. I will describe you the problem first ..I am working
on a search Engine now, in which the crawling is done using Heritrix and the
crawled data is the input for my Logic. while trying to index the ARC files
from Heritrix its not creating indexes in the desired format. The Ex
Be aware that StandardAnalyzer lowercases all the input,
both at index and query times. Field.Store.YES will store
the original text without any transformations, so doc.get()
will return the original text. However, no matter what the
Field.Store value, the *indexed* tokens (using
TOKENIZED as you F
Hi.
I am creating an index where there are no deletions, just additions. After
the index creation is done I need to create another mapping of doc-ids to
some data.
If there are only additions and no deletions then can we assume that the
doc-ids will be in the same order in which the documents we
>
> In example I want to show what I stored field as Field.Index.NO_NORMS
>
> As I understand it means what field contains original string
> despite what analyzer I chose(StandardAnalyzer by default).
>
This would be achieved by UN_TOKENIZED.
The NO_NORMS just guides Lucene to avoid normalizin
Thanks for you reply Erick.
About the only way to do this that I know of is to
index the data three times, once without any case
changing, once uppercased and once lowercased.
You'll have to watch your analyzer, probably making
up your own (easily done, see the synonym analyzer
in Lucene in Ac
About the only way to do this that I know of is to
index the data three times, once without any case
changing, once uppercased and once lowercased.
You'll have to watch your analyzer, probably making
up your own (easily done, see the synonym analyzer
in Lucene in Action).
Your example doesn't tell
IIRC first versions of patches that added payloads support had this notion
of payload by field rather than by token, but later it was modified to be by
token only.
I have seen two code patterns to add payloads to tokens.
The first one created the field text with a reserved separator/delimiter
whi
OK thanks for bringing closure to this John, and good luck tracking it down.
Mike
John O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>Apologies for the delay in getting back.
> I have since figured out that the reason Luke gave an error when we searched
> on the "fixed" index was (possibl
Hello.
I have the similar question.
I need to implement
1. Case sensitive search.
2. Lower case search for concrete field.
3. Upper case search for concrete filed.
For now I use
new Field(“PROPERTIES”,
content,
Field.Store.NO,
Field.Index
18 matches
Mail list logo
