(sorry to respond to myself)
Le 15-janv.-09 à 08:13, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
We have a suggestion engine and we only auto-complete from 3
characters (or a number).
http://draft.i2geo.net/SearchI2G/skills-text-box-editor.jsp?language=en
What would be nice for your case and maybe for ours is
We have a suggestion engine and we only auto-complete from 3
characters (or a number).
http://draft.i2geo.net/SearchI2G/skills-text-box-editor.jsp?language=en
What would be nice for your case and maybe for ours is that this
expansion done in PrefixQuery is made more explicit so that one cou
Sorry, hit the send too quickly. That last should read:
"much more suitable than forming a query".
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> First, it's a legitimate question whether matching on single-letter
> prefixes is useful for the user. If you're running into To
First, it's a legitimate question whether matching on single-letter
prefixes is useful for the user. If you're running into TooManyClauses,
that means (if you haven't changed the defaults) that there are more
than 1024 possibilities. Which is far too many for the user to scan through.
You could lo
Yes Jack that is what we found.
One approach we kicked around is using a standard TermQuery but breaking
up each word into its prefixes. For example, the word 'IBM' would be
added to a document broken into 'I', 'IB', 'IBM'. The downsides seem to
be a lot of waste in the index.
Any thoughts on
Eric,
I don't think that will work. The PrefixQuery generates a giant
BooleanQuery that ORs one TermQuery for each matching term in the index for
that prefix. So the problem isn't the number of fields, but that
PrefixQueries dont scale to large indices.
Jack
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, An
Peter,
Why don't you put all your "autocompletable" values into a single
document field and just query a single field? Google seems to only use
two fields for autocomplete - symbol and company name.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Hayes, Peter [mailto:peter.ha...@fmr.com]
Sent: Wednesday
Hi all,
We are trying to implement a Google finance-like suggest as you type
search field. The index is quite large and comprised of multiple fields
to search across so our initial implementation was to use a BooleanQuery
with multiple PrefixQuery across each field. We quickly ran into the
TooMa
Dear All,
I wish to have a quick test on how lucene performs in terms of precision and
recall.Anyone with a small application that I can use quickly without having to
program using the APIs?
Thanks.
David
I'm pretty sure that StandardAnalyzer does NOT stem, BTW.
But to your main question. I'm confused by your user of the
term "manually". When creating a query, you really have
two choices:
1> let the query parser do your work for you. The result of
the parse operation is a Query, which can be added
Hi Rajesh,
TermQueries (and likewise other queries) take a Term object, which in turn
takes a String. That String should be the analyzed version ("play") of your
originaly query word ("playing"). To get that, you need to feed your
analyzer a Reader of the string you wish to parse ("playing"). I
Thanks Ian.
I agree with you on lowercasing of characters. My main concern is specific to
stemming done by analyzers.
For example, StandardAnalyzer will stem words like playing, played, plays, etc.
to a common tokan "play" which will be stored in the index. Now, during
searches, we would need
Hi Eric,
ShingleMatrixFilter does not add some sort of multiple token synonym
feature on top of a plain old Lucene index, it does however create
permutations of tokens in a matrix. My suggestion is that you first
look at what shingles are and make sure this is something you feel is
intere
13 matches
Mail list logo
