H... If that's the case, would you suggest copying the
relevant fields, using the different analyzers at index time? Then perhaps
combining the two Queries returned from the MFQP into two clauses
in a BooleanQuery? Or is there a more elegant way?
Because you're right of course, trying to use t
: in some cases we have the problem that for a document the ScoreDoc score
: differs at the last digit of the float from the score reported by the
: explanation functionality of lucene. For example:
:
: ScoreDoc: 16.770466 -- Explanation: 16.770468 = (MATCH) sum of: ...
: ScoreDoc: 21.118656 --
Hi Erick,
this is not what he wants to do, I think.
He wants both things at once: One query string that searches both fields
with different analyzers. For searching more than one field at once, he can
use MultiFieldQueryParser, but not if the analyzer for both fields is
different (because the que
: here ie, in our existing system we are showing the search score in
: percenetage but lucene provides the search score in numbers which is derived
: from some internal logic. Can anybody give some tips for converting the
: lucene score to percentage or is there any way to retrive the score as
: p
: In the source of SpellChecker lines 352-353 I see that after the indexing is
: done the index is reopened:
: searcher.close();
: searcher = new IndexSearcher(this.spellIndex);
:
: Why does that second line exist at all?
when you instantiate a SpellChecker object, it opens a Searcher for reuse
This looks like a job for PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper, no
MultiFieldQueryparser required
Best
Erick
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:33 PM, theDude_2 wrote:
>
> Hello fellow Lucene developers!
>
> I have a bit of a question - and I can't find the answer in my lucene
> book
>
> Im trying to crea
Asking people to write some code for you isn't typically an effective
strategy to get assistance. You're more likely to get assistance from the
community if you provide some indication that you've at least looked at
the Lucene APIs and made some attempt at investigating a solution for
yoursel
: Hi
: Am a newbie to Lucene and hence this question about how to implement Ontology
based search using Lucene (LOM).
: It would be useful to guide to any useful books, white papers etc. detailing
out the same.
: Thanks
: R
I have no idea what LOM is ... but google suggests this...
http://porta
: Sorry, you can see the script below:
uh ... ok. so now you've posted a bunch of your code, but you still
haven't addresed the root of what Erick and I were both getting at...
: > Erick means we need to see *all* of your code (inlcuding how you get the
: > score and the Explanation you are pr
Hello fellow Lucene developers!
I have a bit of a question - and I can't find the answer in my lucene
book
Im trying to create a query that will query 2 fields using different
analyzers and combine the scores together to give me my "hits". The idea is
that for the one dataset I want a pure
Hi all,
I had implemented something, which I am going to describe in following steps
1. I took the input as 2 text files
2. I removed stop words from them
3. I did stemming over them
4. I formed the term document matrix using lucene. In the matrix values were
the number of times the term has appear
thank you Grant for the reply,
i will have a look at the mentioned package and classes.
kamal.
Original Message:
Yes and no. You can have a look at More Like This in the contrib
package. Additionally, you can just get the TermVectors out of Lucene
and write your own. You could use a Memory
Thanks Anshum Gupta for the reply,
"As per my knowledge, you'd have to index one of the docs and then run a
query (second doc) to get the similarity score."
which docs do you mean? do you mean i have to create a doc for each Vector, do
you mean somthing like this:
Vector1 =<"term1","term2","ter
13 matches
Mail list logo
