hey i've played around with trying to get towards a reasonable gpl hebrew
analyzer for lucene but don't have anything yet... just messing during my
spare time.
in general it wasnt hard to munge the hspell perl scripts with some java
code into producing a morphological analyzer but from what I see
It wont fit it to my requirement . then I need to maintain different
Indexer,Searcher .It will bring mess up in my Architecture ...
黄成 wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to add another index only included UserName,Web Page
> Name
> and other statistic fields?
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:33 P
Hi,
Are there free Hebrew and Hindi language analyzers for
lucene? I searched archive and found some discussions,
but did not see clear pointers to downloadable classes.
Thanks very much for helps, Lisheng
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
OK, I think I'm getting it, but I'm slow sometimes.
The first thing I'd try is to make sure you index the user
with each document. Then in you HitCollector.collect, use
FieldSelector to load ONLY the user ID from each document
and add the score for that doc to that user (you'll have
to keep some s
I previous posts I have used document for both a file (e.g. Word or Pdf) and
a Lucene document. Let me try again:
A client can have many files but a file only has one client.
For some queries I am not interested in the individual files that match the
query, but rather in the sum of the score for
Hi,
I did a search and need to identify in which fields had occurred matching. Is
possible ?
Thanks
_
Cansado de espaço para só 50 fotos? Conheça o Spaces, o site de relacionamentos
com até 6,000 fotos!
http://www.amigosdomes
This confused me on my first encounter, but it all makes
sense after a while
The first thing to understand is that Store and Index are
orthogonal.That is, when you index a field that data
is placed in the inverted index and is searchable, whether
or not you store it. But it is not retrievable
Hi Paul,
> I have copied some code and it is working for me, but I am a little
> uncertain how to decide what value of Field.Index and Field.Store to
> choose in order to get the behavior I'd like. If I read the javadocs, and
> decide to ignore all the "expert" items, it looks like this:
>
> Fiel
Comments inline:
rolaren...@earthlink.net wrote:
R2.4
I have been looking through the soon-to-be-superseded (by its 2nd ed.) book "Lucene In Action" (hope it's ok on this newsgroup to say I like that book); also at these two tutorials: http://darksleep.com/lucene/ and http://www.informit.com/ar
R2.4
I have been looking through the soon-to-be-superseded (by its 2nd ed.) book
"Lucene In Action" (hope it's ok on this newsgroup to say I like that book);
also at these two tutorials: http://darksleep.com/lucene/ and
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=461633&seqNum=3 and also a
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 10:12:12 Raffaella Ventaglio wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this info.
> In any case, this is not a problem for me since I have used only the "idea"
> to choose between OpenBitSet and SortedViIntList from contrib BooleanFilter,
> but I have then implemented it in my own fac
Does it make sense to add another index only included UserName,Web Page Name
and other statistic fields?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM, selvaa
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am creating a tracker for web applications. I am indexing all the
> user credentials while they are logging .
> The
Is your scoring query also doing some filtering? If so, you could
drive the search with your scoring query, and then pass in as a filter
your second query wrapped with QueryWrapperFilter. I think that's
effectively your last option, which should be the most efficient one.
Or, if the scoring que
Sort is helpful. Maybe you should change you index structure if you think
you need a group by.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Well, I can imagine several schemes, how suitable they are depends
> upon some as yet unspecified characteristics of your problem space.
>
> You
Well, I can imagine several schemes, how suitable they are depends
upon some as yet unspecified characteristics of your problem space.
You don't want to iterate blindly over the responses in a
HitCollector.collect method unless your index is quite small (see the
API docs for an explanation).
If
It's interesting that you found this speedup... I'm not sure offhand
what changes led to the speedup (but I'm still happy about it!).
But... why do you need to iterate through all terms, and all docs for
each term, in the first place?
EG this is what FieldCache does in order to populate v
It's odd that optimize is creating such tiny segments, and then that
these tiny segments wind up consuming so much disk space.
Can you turn on IndexWriter's infoStream, and post the output of the
attempts to optimize?
Are you sure there are no unhandled exceptions being logged to the
sy
A relevant client is one that is related to one or more documents found by a
search.
I would store client as a keyword with a document and I would like the query
to return clients with the sum of relevant documents score. A client with
many low scoring documents could be as relevant as a client
Hallo,
I'm currently thinking about what the best solution would be for the
following request:
- a lucene index should be queried for a number of search criteria
- the score for each result should not be the normal query score, but an
indicator on the similarity between the matched document and
Thanks for sharing this info.
In any case, this is not a problem for me since I have used only the "idea"
to choose between OpenBitSet and SortedViIntList from contrib BooleanFilter,
but I have then implemented it in my own facets manager structure, so I do
not use the "removed" finalResult method.
20 matches
Mail list logo
