It sounds me as if there could be a market for a new kind of query that
would implement:
A w/5 (B and C)
in the way that people understand it to mean - the same A near both B
and C, not just any A.
Maybe it's too hard to implement using rewrites into existing SpanQueries?
In term of the Pos
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Harris wrote:
> but also crazier ones, perhaps like
>
> agreement w/5 (medical and companion)
> (dog or dragon) w/5 (cat and cow)
> (daisy and (dog or dragon)) w/25 (cat not cow)
[skip]
Everything in your post matches our experience. We ended up writing
some
> medical w/5 agreement
> (medical w/5 agreement) and (doctor w/10 rights)
>
> but also crazier ones, perhaps like
>
> agreement w/5 (medical and companion)
> (dog or dragon) w/5 (cat and cow)
> (daisy and (dog or dragon)) w/25 (cat not cow)
This syntax reminds me Surround.
http://wiki.apache.o
I'm working on a product for librarians and similar people, who
apparently expect to be able to combine classic boolean operators
(i.e. AND, OR, NOT) with proximity operators (especially w/n and pre/n
-- which basically map to unordered and ordered SpanQueries with slop
n, respectively) in unrestri
Hi,
I have the following documents
Document doc1 = new Document();
doc1.add(new Field("searchText", "ABC Takeaway f...@company.com
f...@company.com", Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.ANALYZED));
Document doc2 = new Document();
doc2.add(new Field("searchText", "XYZ Takeaway f...@company.com",
Field.St
Also, if I do the below
Query q = new QueryParser(Version.LUCENE_35, "searchText",
analyzer).parse("Takeaway f...@company.com^100")
I get them in reverse order. Do I need to boost the term, even if it
appears more than once in the document?
Regards
Meeraj
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Meeraj
This is the output I get from explaining the plan ..
Found 2 hits.
1. XYZ Takeaway f...@company.com
0.5148823 = (MATCH) sum of:
0.17162743 = (MATCH) weight(searchText:takeaway in 1), product of:
0.57735026 = queryWeight(searchText:takeaway), product of:
0.5945349 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDo
The actual query is
Query q = new QueryParser(Version.LUCENE_35, "searchText",
analyzer).parse("Takeaway f...@company.com");
If I use
Query q = new QueryParser(Version.LUCENE_35, "searchText", analyzer).parse("
f...@company.com");
I get them in the reverse order.
Regards
Meeraj
On Wed, May 16
I have tried the same using Lucene directly with the following code,
import org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory;
import org.apache.lucene.document.Document;
import org.apache.lucene.document.Field;
import org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriterConfig;
import org.apache.lucene.util.Version;
import org
Thanks Ivan.
I don't use Lucene directly, it is used behind the scene by the Neo4J graph
database for full-text indexing. According to their documentation for full
text indexes they use white space tokenizer in the analyser. Yes, I do get
Listing 2 first now. Though if I exclude the term "Takeaway
Use the explain function to understand why the query is producing the
results you see.
http://lucene.apache.org/core/3_6_0/api/core/org/apache/lucene/search/Searcher.html#explain(org.apache.lucene.search.Query,
int)
Does your current query return Listing 2 first? That might be because
of term fre
Hi,
I am quite new to Lucene. I am trying to use it to index listings of local
businesses. The index has only one field, that stores the attributes of a
listing as well as email addresses of users who have rated that business.
For example,
Listing 1: "XYZ Takeaway London f...@company.com bar...@
Thanks everyone. Looks like I have lots of reading to do :-)
-Original Message-
From: Nader, John P
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:27
Subject: Re: Memory question
Another good link is
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/gc-tuning-6-140523.ht
Another good link is
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/gc-tuning-6-140523.html,
which also includes details on iCMS, which is the Incremental Mode for CMS.
On 5/15/12 6:32 PM, "Lutz Fechner" wrote:
>CMS is the concurrent mark sweep garbage collector. Instead of waiting
>for the memor
Another option to consider is to *decrease* the JVM maximum heap size.
This in effect leaves more memory for swapped in mmio pages and
decreases the GC effort, which might increase system performance and
stability.
Regards,
Christoph
Am 15.05.2012 21:38, schrieb Chris Bamford:
Thanks Uwe.
W
15 matches
Mail list logo
