Hi folks
I have a question as follows:
suppose there are 3 document in field "name":
1) a b c
2) a b
3) a
I just want to retrival doc 3) only. I try to use syntax like this:
name:"a"
but I find it is not correct.is there any way to solve my question.
please help me!
thanks ahead!
--
Hi sascha,
You can do with boolean query, Take your three queries and OR them with
boolean clause Occur.should.
-Nitin
On Tuesday 10 February 2015 08:58 PM, Sascha Janz wrote:
Hi,
i want to combine two MultiTermQueries.
One searches over FieldA, one over FieldB. Both queries should be
Hello,
I've done a lot of googling, but haven't stumbled upon the magic
answer: how does one use StandardQueryParser with numeric fields
representing timestamps, to allow for range queries?
When indexing, my timestamp fields are ISO 8601 strings. I'm parsing
them and then storing the milliseconds
I have subclassed the BooleanQuery and changed the BooleanWeight constructor
to change the way the /coord/ and /idf /components of the similiarity
formula are computed, and my changes work as expected when calling
IndexSearcher.explain().
However, I now find that when just calling IndexSearcher.se
Hi,
In Linux/Solaris/BSD/... operating systems you can delete files while they are
open (or mmapped, does not matter). The inode/file on disk stays alive until
everything is closed ("delete on last close" semantics), it just disappears
from the directory listing, so you cannot open new handles
Yep, that looks good to me.
--
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sascha Janz wrote:
> hm, already thought this could be the solution but didn't know how to do the
> or Operation
>
> so i tried this
>
> BooleanQuery bquery = new BooleanQuery();
> bquery.add(queryFieldA, BooleanClause.Occu
Appreciate it Mike. That answeres it all.
BTW we use solaris.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> It's fine if writer and reader are in separate JVMs.
>
> You really should not "rm -rf" yourself.
>
> It's better to let Lucene's do it, e.g. it
It's fine if writer and reader are in separate JVMs.
You really should not "rm -rf" yourself.
It's better to let Lucene's do it, e.g. it's transactional at that
point so that if your new IndexWriter (that deleted all docs) crashes
before it could commit, the old index is still intact. It also
en
searching and indexing apps run in diffrent jvms. we use lucene 4.7 and
using the default openmode.
For full indexing, we use java.io.File.delete() to recursively delete index
directory contents. will remapping cause any issues in this case if I dont
use options you suggested?
On Tue, Feb 10, 201
Just open a new IndexWriter with OpenMode.CREATE. It will replace the index.
Or if you already have an IW open, use deleteAll.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Vijay B wrote:
> We use MMapdirectory impl. in our search application. Occasionally w
We use MMapdirectory impl. in our search application. Occasionally we need
to do a full indexing by dropping entire directory contents. How does
re-mapping work with MMapDirectory as the directory contents are going to
replace with new ones? is this going to be seamless or an application
restart re
hm, already thought this could be the solution but didn't know how to do the
or Operation
so i tried this
BooleanQuery bquery = new BooleanQuery();
bquery.add(queryFieldA, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
bquery.add(queryFieldB, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
this is the correct way?
Gesendet: Di
org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanQuery.
--
Ian.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Sascha Janz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i want to combine two MultiTermQueries.
>
> One searches over FieldA, one over FieldB. Both queries should be combined
> with "OR" operator.
>
> so in lucene Syntax i want to searc
Hi,
i want to combine two MultiTermQueries.
One searches over FieldA, one over FieldB. Both queries should be combined
with "OR" operator.
so in lucene Syntax i want to search
FieldA:Term1 OR FieldB:Term1, FieldA:Term2 OR FieldB:Term2, FieldA:Term3 OR
FieldB:Term3...
how can i do t
Hi Charlie,
You need to create an account on the wiki and tell us your account name.
Steve
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Charlie Picorini
> wrote:
>
> Dear Lucene Team,
>
> Please add me to the contributorsGroup so that I can add IntraCherche which
> is actually based on Lucene.
>
> Kind r
Dear Lucene Team,
Please add me to the contributorsGroup so that I can add IntraCherche which
is actually based on Lucene.
Kind regards,
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: sreedevi s [mailto:sreedevi.payik...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:46 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene search in attachments
>
> Hi Uwe,
> Thank you for the info update.I will remove the limit in tika and check.
Hi Uwe,
Thank you for the info update.I will remove the limit in tika and check.
So, my understanding is,currently lucene doesnt have any restriction on
number of terms per field but when a term is greater then 2^15 bytes it is
silently ignored at indexing time – a message is logged in to infoStre
Hi,
> OK. I found the Alfresco code on GitHub. So it's open source it seems.
>
> And I found the DateTimeAnalyser, so I will just take that code as a starting
> point:
> https://github.com/lsbueno/alfresco/tree/master/root/projects/repository/
> source/java/org/alfresco/repo/search/impl/lucene/an
Hi,
There is no restriction to 1 characters inside Lucene and there never was
one. In earlier Lucene versions (long time ago) there was an implicit
restriction to 10,000 TERMS (not characters). This is no longer the case. If
you still want this, you have to wrap your Analyzer: http://goo.gl
No David. By increasing the value or I can set to -1 to make it unlimited
but still I cannot assure that my whole text can be searchable, which is
still a problem with large files because only the part which is indexed
will be searchable.
Was looking for some alternatives.
Best Regards,
Sreedevi S
I don’t understand.
If you don’t raise this restriction to a higher value (or to -1), all the text
won’t be extracted so only a subset of the text will be indexed.
Non indexed parts of the text won’t be searchable.
Did I misunderstand your question?
--
David Pilato | Technical Advocate | Elasti
Thank you David. Yes, it has a restriction of characters to 1.
But for large files, what could be done in that case?
Best Regards,
Sreedevi S
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Pilato wrote:
> If you don’t index content, you won’t be able to search for it I guess.
> That said, Tika can
If you don’t index content, you won’t be able to search for it I guess.
That said, Tika can have this extracted characters limit. See indexedChars
below:
tika().parseToString(new BytesStreamInput(content, false), metadata,
indexedChars);
[1]
https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch-mappe
Hi,
Which is the best method to search in attachments in lucene? I am new
to lucene and I am using version 4.10.2. By making use of Tika, I know I
can convert files to text and then index it as another field. But for large
files that will not be the ideal solution. I believe the maximum charact
25 matches
Mail list logo
