Thanks for the input. In fact, we are using this very query as a Solr
queryFilter (i.e. qf). Is there a specific (Lucene query) syntax to formulate
(force the usage of) such a FieldValueFilter?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ahmet Arslan [mailto:iori...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Gesendet: Mitt
: In Lucene you don't need to use a query parser for that, especially
: because range Queries is suboptimal and slow: There is already a very
: fast query/filter available. Ahmet Arslan already mentioned that, we had
: the same discussion a few weeks ago:
: http://find.searchhub.org/document/a
Hi,
In Lucene you don't need to use a query parser for that, especially because
range Queries is suboptimal and slow: There is already a very fast query/filter
available. Ahmet Arslan already mentioned that, we had the same discussion a
few weeks ago: http://find.searchhub.org/document/abb73b45
Oops... I take that back! After I clicked Send I realized that this is the
Lucene list - what I said is true for Solr queries, but that is because
Solr added a "hack" to do things properly, but the Lucene query parser
doesn't have that hack, so Erick is correct.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Wed, Jan 7, 2
The pure negative query should work fine as a top level query - it's just
when nested as a sub-query within parentheses that it misbehaves.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not
> pure boole
Hi Clemens,
Since you are a lucene user, you might be interested in Uwe's response on a
similar topic :
http://find.searchhub.org/document/abb73b45a48cb89e
Ahmet
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:30 PM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not
Thx!
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 17:31
An: java-user
Betreff: Re: Looking for docs that have certain fields empty (an/or not set)
Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not pure
Should be, but it's a bit confusing because the query syntax is not
pure boolean,
so there's no set to take away the docs with entries in field 1, you need the
match all docs bit, i.e.
*:* -field1:[* TO *]
(That's asterisk:asterisk -field1:[* TO *] in case the silly list
interprets the asterisks
a
Performance measurements must be made carefully. Have you performed any
warmup?
I recommend doing 10k calls just to let the dust settle including stuff
like jit, before taking any kind if measurements. Also use mmapdirectory,
if not already, to help with spikes in disk accesses.
Also keep track
rama44ster [rama44s...@gmail.com] wrote:
[3 MUST clauses]
> 50 = 16 ms
> 75 = 52 ms
> 90 = 121 ms
> 95 = 262 ms
> 99 = 76010 ms
> 99.9 = 76037 ms
> Is the latency expected to degrade when the number of docs is as high as
> 480M?
Try plotting response times as a function of hit count. My guess i
Say I wanted to find documents which have no content in "field1" (or dosuments
that have no field 'field1'), wouldn't that be the following query?
-field1:[* TO *]
Thanks for you help
Clemens
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-
Hi,
I have a lucene index which has close to 480M documents. And I ran around
1000 queries against the index. Each query is a boolean query with 3
different tokens. That is the query has 3 operands which MUST occur.
Executing such 3 token queries gives the following latency percentiles.
50 = 16 ms
12 matches
Mail list logo
