Your answer is quite clear, but my question is a bit more specific:
as you seen from my snippet ( I copy it here again), I'm already using
BooleanQuery and QueryParser.parse method.
booleanQuery.add(new QueryParser(org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40,
"tags", new
WhitespaceAnalyzer(org.apache
I'm not only interested in ordering relevant docs, but measure similarity
per field. (More specificially, i'm passing the results to a classifier..
but this is out of topic)
On 22 March 2011 23:27, Erick Erickson wrote:
> yes, explain will slow things down, but I'd assumed that
> you only cared
You should not use the ParallelMultiSearcher. It will not be in the 4.0 release.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi Ganesh,
>
> this method is also in 2.9.1, it is just inherited from the superclass! You
> have to also look at the complete javadocs. Not every method that
Where i can find MIGRATE.txt ?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:07 AM, nitin hardeniya
wrote:
> hey
>
> no null doesn't work
>
> I have tried
> tds=MultiFields.getTermDocsEnum(reader, null, "content", term);
>
> this is not showing error but not it shows error at
> getSpans()
>
> Thanks
> Nitin
>
> On W
hey
no null doesn't work
I have tried
tds=MultiFields.getTermDocsEnum(reader, null, "content", term);
this is not showing error but not it shows error at
getSpans()
Thanks
Nitin
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Michael McCandless-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+2716623-544966764-77...@n3.nabble.com>
yes, explain will slow things down, but I'd assumed that
you only cared about this for debugging. What is the use-case
for having it on all the time?
Best
Erick
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Patrick Diviacco
wrote:
> I've been told search explain should be used for debugging only because it
Try looking at MIGRATE.txt?
Passing null for the skipDocs should be fine. Likely you need to use
MultiFields.getTermDocsEnum, but that entails a performance hit (vs
going segment by segment yourself).
Mike
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM, nitinhardeniya
wrote:
>
hi
I have a code that work fine with lucene 3.2 where i used TermDocs to find
the corpusTF here is the code
public void calculateCorpusTF(IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Iterator it = word.iterator();
I
Each database having its own index should be fine.
However, just checking modified timestamp may not be enough, since there
could be items deleted.
You can check DBSight for this purpose. It can do remote index
replication across WAN.
But, if the NY index is synchronized before NY database doe
I've been told search explain should be used for debugging only because it
slows down a lot computations. Is it true ?
On 22 March 2011 14:29, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Try Searcher.explain.
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Patrick Diviacco
> wrote:
> > Is there a way to disp
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 04:15:53PM +0100, fr.jur...@voila.fr wrote:
> The only thing I need is the middle layer: a Java component extending
> Lucene, that'd pull a plausible Analyzer out of its magic hat, for every
> ISO 639-1 language tag however unlikely that turns up in the RDF input.
> Not ju
Hi Luceners,
this is my 1st experience with ARQ, LARQ & Lucene;
everyth. went smooth so far, however the slope seems to be getting
steeper suddenly.
The initial problem was to develop a Java app to build, then to browse
through, a repository of RDF data. With TDB/ARQ, this is now running
smoot
yes,i think the "MatchAllDocsQuery" should feed your need.
-- Original --
From: "Anshum";
Date: 2011年3月22日(星期二) 晚上7:40
To: "java-user";
Subject: Re: how to get all documents in the results ?
Hi Patrick,
You may have a look at this, perhaps this will help you
all right. I still have one last question. If I pass a new QueryParser to
booleanQuery.add method, am I actually passing multiple single terms or it
is the same than just passing the string ?
See example below, please...
booleanQuery.add(new QueryParser(org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40,
"
Try Searcher.explain.
Best
Erick
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Patrick Diviacco
wrote:
> Is there a way to display Lucene scores per field instead of the global one
> ?
> Both my query and my docs have 3 fields.
>
> I would like to see the scores for each field in the results. Can I ?
>
> Or
A good habit to develop is to print out the toString() of the assembled
queries, that'll get you going pretty quickly understanding what the
query assembly is all about without having to wait for people to respond.
But the short form is that phrase queries require all the terms to be
adjacent, whi
Don't do that Let's back up a second and
ask why in the world you want to do this, what's the
use-case you're satisfying? Because spinning through
all the results and getting information from the underlying
documents is inherently expensive since, as Sanne
says, you're doing disk seeks. Most L
The easiest way to figure out this kind of thing is to print out the
toString() on the queries after they're assembled. I believe you'll
find that the difference is that the PhraseQuery would find text like
"Term1 Term2 Term3" but not text like "Term1 some stuff Term2 more
stuff Term3" whereas Bool
You can't. If by "normalize" you mean compare the scores
between two different queries, it's meaningless. The scores
from one query to another are not comparable.
If by "normalize" you mean make into a value between 0 and 1,
anywhere you have access to raw scores I believe you also have
access to
MatchAllDocs does not consider only a single field but all fields i.e. it
takes a *:* query.
*1. *
*Snip
Query query = new MatchAllDocsQuery();
TopDocs td = is.search(query, ir.numDocs());
ScoreDoc[ ] scoreDocs = td.scoreDocs;
for(ScoreDoc scoreDoc:scoreDocs){
... Your code...
}
/Sn
1. "all" docs
2. because matchalldocs only consider one field at once. I'm searching over
multiple fields instead.
3. could you tell me more about this ? It might be a solution!
On 22 March 2011 12:18, Anshum wrote:
> so a few things
> 1. are you looking to get 'all' documents or only docs m
so a few things
1. are you looking to get 'all' documents or only docs matching your query?
2. if its about fetching all docs, why not use the matchalldocs query?
3. did you try using a collector instead of topdocs?
--
Anshum Gupta
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Pat
I don't think the link you suggested can help, but maybe I'm wrong.
Also, the parameter MAX_HITS is not useful, it just limit the results, it
doesn't add the not relevant docs.
On 22 March 2011 12:10, Anshum wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> You may have a look at this, perhaps this will help you with i
Hi Patrick,
You may have a look at this, perhaps this will help you with it. Let me know
if you're still stuck up.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3300265/lucene-3-iterating-over-all-hits
--
Anshum Gupta
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:10 PM, wrote:
> Not sure what yo
Hi Folks,
Before I run off and reinvent the wheel here - has anyone done any form
of result grouping with lucene?
My use case looks something like this:
Newspaper pages are stored as documents in the lucene index.
I need to list the newpapers that match my criteria in date order, so
that I ca
Not sure what your use case actually is, but it sounds like you may be unclear
how Lucene works.
Each query clause you have will produce an iterator that walks over the
documents that match that clause. All the documents from the entire, root
query get scored. The scoring evaluation per docum
Yes, that's how its generally done. Also, you should just handle data/fields
aptly rather than trying to avoid them in the first place. You could safely
add these, use these internally and never return these or use these for an
end user search.
--
Anshum Gupta
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
On Tue,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Anshum-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+2714275-817267840-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> Also,
> Is there a particular reason why you wouldn't want to index that
> considering
> you'd want to 'update' documents.
>
I'd not mind indexing it, but I wouldn't want it to pop up
Also,
Is there a particular reason why you wouldn't want to index that considering
you'd want to 'update' documents. Its good practice to index the unique
field specially if you have one. It has generally helped more often than
not.
--
Anshum Gupta
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
On Tue, Mar 22, 201
On 3/22/11 10:09 AM, shrinath.m wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Michael Wechner [via Lucene]<
ml-node+2714008-984126374-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
are you looking for something like
http://hrycan.com/2009/11/26/updating-document-fields-in-lucene/
?
Precisely that.
I am OK with st
Can have a look at http://katta.sourceforge.net/ or
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCollectionDistributionScripts
HTH
Johannes
On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:30 AM, sol myr wrote:
> Hi,
> What are my options for distributing an application that uses Lucene?
>
> Our current application works against a d
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Michael Wechner [via Lucene] <
ml-node+2714008-984126374-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> are you looking for something like
>
> http://hrycan.com/2009/11/26/updating-document-fields-in-lucene/
>
> ?
>
Precisely that.
I am OK with storing the fields,
but I wanted to
Is there a way to display Lucene scores per field instead of the global one
?
Both my query and my docs have 3 fields.
I would like to see the scores for each field in the results. Can I ?
Or should I run the query 3 times for each single field ?
thanks
Hi,
What are my options for distributing an application that uses Lucene?
Our current application works against a database of INVENTORY. We schedule
hourly checks for modified items (timestamp-based), and update a single
Lucene index.
Now we want to distribute out application, to a Grid, with fail
I'm using the following code because I want to see the entire collection in
my query results:
//adding wildcards-term to see all results
rest = new TermQuery(new Term("*","*"));
booleanQuery.add(rest, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
But it doesn't work, I only see the relevant docs and not all the o
On 3/22/11 8:40 AM, shrinath.m wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Anshum-2 [via Lucene]<
ml-node+2713899-1210341880-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
No as of now, there's no way to do so.
Thank you Anshum-2,
how do you propose I do this ?
I have thought of a way like this :
- first get the
OK, so I'm currently doing this:
booleanQuery.add(new QueryParser(org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40,
"tags", new
WhitespaceAnalyzer(org.apache.lucene.util.Version.LUCENE_40)).parse(phrase[i]);
, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
I just want to add single terms to my booleanQuery. if I pass a q
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Anshum-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+2713899-1210341880-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> No as of now, there's no way to do so.
Thank you Anshum-2,
how do you propose I do this ?
I have thought of a way like this :
- first get the doc based on a unique id into a HashMa
Hi,
No as of now, there's no way to do so.
--
Anshum Gupta
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:29 PM, shrinath.m wrote:
> I am asking for partial update in Lucene,
> where I want to update only a selected field of all fields in the document.
> Does Lucene provide any way to
I am asking for partial update in Lucene,
where I want to update only a selected field of all fields in the document.
Does Lucene provide any way to do this ?
How to approach this ?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Is-it-possible-to-update-only-selected-fie
40 matches
Mail list logo
