Don't forget to add the new *RangeQuery classes! :-)
Uwe
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Harwood [mailto:markharw...@yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:32 AM
> To: j
Yes it is being maintained and I have it in production on many large systems.
Phrase prefix wildcard etc can be supported using the "UserQuery" tag which
hands off to the regular Lucene QueryParser. It would be easy to add XML tags
for these types but these clauses tend to be provided by users a
Toke Eskildsen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:18 +0100, Michael van Rooyen wrote:
I recently upgraded from version 2.3.2 to 2.9.1. [...]
Since going live a few days ago, however, we've twice had read past
EOF exceptions.
The first thing to do is check the Java version. If you're using Sun
Toke Eskildsen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:18 +0100, Michael van Rooyen wrote:
I recently upgraded from version 2.3.2 to 2.9.1. [...]
Since going live a few days ago, however, we've twice had read past EOF
exceptions.
The first thing to do is check the Java version. If you're usin
XMLQueryParser is pretty good start. However, is it being maintained
recently?
I noticed many Query class are not supported, like PrefixQuery, or even
PhraseQuery.
Is it for some particular reason or simply lack of resource?
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Sea
Yes, I will provide a patch. Our new proxy server has broken my access to
the svn repository, though :-(
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> That sounds reasonable. Patch?
>
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Peter Keegan wrote:
>
> > The 'explain' method in PayloadNearSpanSco
This was part of the rationale for creating the XMLQueryParser which can be
found in contrib.
See here for the background:
http://marc.info/?l=lucene-dev&m=113355526731460&w=2
On 17 Feb 2010, at 18:44, Aaron Schon wrote:
> Hi all, I know that persisting a Lucene query by query ToString() meth
Hello,
I'm seeking some help with a highlighting issue involving the SpanQuery family.
To illustrate my issue, I added a test to the existing HighlighterTest (see
diff, below, against tags/lucene_2_9_1). When this test runs, it fails and the
System.out.println yields this:
Expected: "Sam dis
I recently had the same need, for a utility to get me from the Query toString()
output back to the Java code to construct that specific query in Lucene. The
reason for my interest is that our query syntax differs significantly from the
standard Lucene query syntax, so having something like this
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Well, Query *does* implement the Serializable interface, so that
> might work. WARNING: I haven't personally used the Serializable
> interface on Query, so I have no real clue whether it's applicable!
>
Query is serializable (lots of peopl
Well, Query *does* implement the Serializable interface, so that
might work. WARNING: I haven't personally used the Serializable
interface on Query, so I have no real clue whether it's applicable!
Taking the results of query.toString() and pumping it back through
the parser is not guaranteed to pr
Hi all, I know that persisting a Lucene query by query ToString() method. Is
there any way of reconstructing the query from the string itself?
The usecase is that I will be storing a library of queries as strings and load
the appropriate query (from the string) based on some conditions.
Is this
I tend to agree with you Marvin, you are right, the different scoring
mechanisms need different information available and this is the problem.
although last I checked, one hard part of BM25 rotates around fields versus
documents... e.g. BM25's IDF calculation.
but maybe this is just an extreme fo
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:31:19AM -0500, Robert Muir wrote:
> yet if we don't do the hard work up front to make it easy to plug in things
> like BM25, then no one will implement additional scoring formulas for
> Lucene, we currently make it terribly difficult to do this.
FWIW... Similarity and po
right, that is basically lnu.ltc, we should support that model too.
i experimented with this for some work i was doing, and hacked it in with
similarity by exposing this stuff to FieldInvertState and shoving it in the
norm, not the best as its just a byte and already storing the length norm
too, b
Nevermind ... I wrote too soon ... It works!! Thank you Uwe Schindler!
Alison Callahan
AlisonCallahan wrote:
>
> Originally "subject" was indexed with ANALYZED ... I changed it to
> NOT_ANALYZED (there was no "keyword" option for indexing in Lucene 3.0.0),
> and I am still having the same probl
Originally "subject" was indexed with ANALYZED ... I changed it to
NOT_ANALYZED (there was no "keyword" option for indexing in Lucene 3.0.0),
and I am still having the same problem.
Thanks,
Alison Callahan
Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> How is "subject indexed"?
>
> I fit is indexed with ANALYZED
Another example of plugging in different score mechanism is getting average
term frequency for the TF normalization described in IBM's
http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec16/papers/ibm-haifa.mq.final.pdf
We opened up the TermScorer class for that.
Thanks,
Ivan
--- On Wed, 2/17/10, Robert Muir wrot
How is "subject indexed"?
I fit is indexed with ANALYZED not as keyword only, StandardAnalyzer will
remove <, lowercase and so on.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: AlisonCallahan [mailto
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:18 +0100, Michael van Rooyen wrote:
> I recently upgraded from version 2.3.2 to 2.9.1. [...]
> Since going live a few days ago, however, we've twice had read past EOF
> exceptions.
The first thing to do is check the Java version. If you're using Sun JRE
1.6.0, you might h
I have indexed RDF in N-triple format (with three fields -- "subject",
"predicate", "object") and now am trying to query the index with a
PrefixQuery on the "subject" field. My test case is to get back all
documents whose subject field starts with the prefix "http://old.nabble.com/PrefixQuery-retu
Yuval, i apologize for not having an intelligent response for your question
(if i did i would try to formulate it as a patch), but I too would like for
it to be extremely easy... maybe we can iterate on the patch.
below is how i feel about it:
i guess theoretically, the use of Similarity is how w
Hello all!
We've been using Lucene for a few years and it's worked without a
murmur. I recently upgraded from version 2.3.2 to 2.9.1. We didn't
need to make any code changes for the upgrade - apart from the
deprecation warnings, the code compiled cleanly and 2.9.1 worked fine in
testing.
Thank u
I will try
Erik Hatcher-4 wrote:
>
> Solr can front your Lucene index, and via Solritas[1] it can provide a
> simple and customizable basic UI.
>
> Though to stick with pure Lucene, give LIMO[2] a try.
>
> Erik
>
> [1]
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/11/04/solr
Solr can front your Lucene index, and via Solritas[1] it can provide a
simple and customizable basic UI.
Though to stick with pure Lucene, give LIMO[2] a try.
Erik
[1]
http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/11/04/solritas-solr-1-4s-hidden-gem/
[2] http://limo.sourceforge.net/
O
Hi Michael,
I've seen that our main problem is that copy() method is always sending
documents in the same order (between two queries with same content in
different time). So it is a problem if we use compareBottom a lot because
the documents at the begining of the queue recieve more comparations
I already have the data indexed (a database table) and also i have class
to search.. just simple
I would like just a search box ...
Thank u
polx wrote:
>
>
> On 16-févr.-10, at 17:40, luciusvorenus wrote:
>> how can I build a webinterface for my aplication ? I read
>> something with
>>
Hi,
After looking for a long time and feeling the need to I'd like to invite
people to a Lucene India user/developer group. There is no such thing
existing at the moment where we could interact and organize
meet-ups/discussion events for Lucene developers based in India.
Please visit* http://groups
This is very interesting and much friendlier than a flame war.
My practical question for Robert is:
How can we modify the BM25 patch so that it:
a) Becomes part of Lucene contrib.
b) Be easier to use (preventing mistakes such as Ivan's using the BM25
similarity during indexing).
c) Proceeds towar
29 matches
Mail list logo
