That's right. For example, file is uploaded with keyword "picture" and you are
searching "keyword:picture keyword:music" (music OR picture). This file will be
returned by search, but your will not be able to tell if it's music or picture.
The Lucene index itself is inverted index, so all fields
say you index information about a book with the title: "Lucene in
Action" with an ID and other information.
searching for "Lucene" will find the book and will give you the book's
ID. now if you used Store.YES -- then Lucene can also give you the full
title, i.e. "Lucene in Action", but if you
Thanks for all the responses.
Apart from the API changes, is there any major functionality change from
2.4.0 -> 4.x version. I know we need to modify the API to the latest version
but just curious if we need to be aware of any functional changes so as to
do more thorough testing?
Thanks,
Sai.
Not sure what does the following below mean?
>>using Field.Store.NO the field itself is definitely searchable. You will
not be able to retrieve the field value itself
For example, if we have a file that we upload using some keywords and if the
keyword (is of type Field.Store.NO but is analyzed)
hi Denis,
thanks for your reply. OffsetAttribute gives the character position
whereas I was looking for the Token Position. I ended up adding the
attached PositionAttribute/PositionAttributeImpl/PositionFilter.
as it turned out though I didn't need that attribute as there was an
easier way
If you are using Field.Store.NO the field itself is definitely searchable. You
will not be able to retrieve the field value itself, though. But consequences
of using Field.Store.YES is dependent on context. If you have a lot of
documents in index and storable field is relatively large, this coul
What you are looking for is OffsetAttribute. Also consider the possibility of
using ShingleFilter with position increment > 1 and then filtering tokens
containing "_" (underscore). This will be easier, I guess.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Igal @ getRailo.org wrote:
> hi all,
>
> how can I ge
I'm no expert but my understanding is that it is Searchable, but you can
Not retrieve the information, if for example you want to show excerpts
etc. the index size will be smaller, of course.
Igal
On 1/10/2013 3:16 PM, saisantoshi wrote:
I am new to lucene and am trying to understand what
I am new to lucene and am trying to understand what is the impact on the
search in using Field.Store.NO vs Field.Store.YES. I know the earlier does
not store the value in the index and later stores it in the index. Would
that mean that the one that uses Field.Store.NO is not searchable?
new Field
hi all,
how can I get the Token's Position from the TokenStream / Tokenizer /
Analyzer ? I know that there's a TokenPositionIncrement Attribute and a
TokenPositionLength Attribute, but is there an easy way to get the token
position or do I need to implement my own attribute by adding one of t
We are using StandardAnalyzer for indexing some Japanese Keywords. It works
fine so far but just wanted to confirm if the StandardAnalyzer can fully
support it ( I have read somewhere in Lucene In Action book, that
StandardAnalyzer does support CJK). Just want to confirm if my understanding
is corr
Hello!
Just one thing - backup your index first, just in case.
--
Regards,
Rafał Kuć
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Hello!
> Try using CheckIndex -
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/old_versioned_docs/versions/3_0_0/api/all/org/apache/lucene/index/CheckIndex.html
Hello!
Try using CheckIndex -
http://lucene.apache.org/core/old_versioned_docs/versions/3_0_0/api/all/org/apache/lucene/index/CheckIndex.html
--
Regards,
Rafał Kuć
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Hi,
> I have an index, for which I am missing at least 1 file after
Hi,
I have an index, for which I am missing at least 1 file after hitting a
disk full situation.
is there any way I could bypass the error I get when trying to open the
index, to salvage as many docs as I can from the other files?
thanks,
vince
java.io.FileNotFoundException: D:\_2c9kgw.cfs (T
Not a clue and I don't recall ever seeing anything on this list about
disk block sizes etc.
General advice on disks for lucene is the faster the better. SSDs are
reputably excellent and recommended.
Other than that I stick with my original advice: A good general
principle is to start with the de
rm -rf works well for number 4. For the others use your favourite
search engine with queries like "lucene tutorial" or "lucene getting
started". Or start with these:
http://lucene.apache.org/core/quickstart.html
http://www.lucenetutorial.com/lucene-in-5-minutes.html
Good luck.
--
Ian.
On
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Hi Uwe,
> The best way to do this ist o wrap the standard Lucene
> TopScoreDocCollector by your own collector (passing all
> calls to the collector also down to the top-docs collector).
> Then you don't have to take care of sorting the resul
> I am using Lucene 4.0.0, trying to put together a CustomQuery and a
> Collector, and have a problem with the calculation of scores.
>
> My context is as follows. I have a big BooleanQuery which works fine, but I
> also want to calculate some statistics during the search (i.e.
> perform aggregati
Hello,
I am using Lucene 4.0.0, trying to put together a CustomQuery and a
Collector, and have a problem with the calculation of scores.
My context is as follows. I have a big BooleanQuery which works fine,
but I also want to calculate some statistics during the search (i.e.
perform aggregation o
19 matches
Mail list logo
