Hallo,
I'm currently thinking about what the best solution would be for the
following request:
- a lucene index should be queried for a number of search criteria
- the score for each result should not be the normal query score, but an
indicator on the similarity between the matched document and
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:01:52 + (GMT)
eks dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To put it another way, Filter forces us to use BitSet,
> which is rather inefficient way to store a few
> documents from the big collection.
I cannot comment on your suggestion, but I think the current filter
should pr
Markus Atteneder writes:
> There is a possibility for searching with the "*" and "?" wildcard at the
> end and in the middle of a search string, but not at the beginning, is there
> way to do this?
>
Sure. Simply index reversed words.
The reason why QP prohibits wildcards at the beginning is perf
Bill Tschumy writes:
>
> On May 18, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Albert Vila wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I need to retrieve all terms from an specified field filtered for
> > another field. For example,
> >
> > Document 1 ->
> >
> >
> > Document 2 ->
> >
Vince Taluskie writes:
> Richard,
>
> In an earlier note, I mentioned using an Netapp R100 for storage of our
> indexes and content - so I can say that Lucene definitely works accessing
> over NFS. I think this is more for updating/merging the same indexes across
> multiple systems simultaneous
Erik Hatcher writes:
> >
> > There are some information retrieval settings which tend to say that
> > things that appear early in the document should be considered with
> > greater score... is there nothing such in Lucene's scoring ?
>
> No, Lucene doesn't have that feature, at least not explici
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
>
> The link to list archives should be on lucene.apache.org.
>
It should, but the link there does not work.
All you get is 'Error occurred
Required parameter "listId" or "listName" is missing or invalid'
from mail-archives.apache.org
Something seems to be broken.
So t
Kristian Ottosen writes:
>
> It seems to work now - but I would still love to see a good explanation.
>
How was your java application started? (sorry I you already explained,
I didn't keep the thread and the mailing list archive seems to be out
of order)
I remember strange problems (with mkdir
pashupathinath writes:
>how can i traverse through the values stored in the
> index and make sure that the new records are not
> duplicated ? once i encounter the duplicate primary
> key, i should be able to delete all the various fields
> values associated with that primary key.
>
There's
Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks for your very thorough response. It is very helpful.
>
> For all my projects, I'm using the latest Subversion codebase and
> staying current with any changes there, so that is very good news.
>
For lucene-1.4.final I find that some query on a real life index
of the form a
Ernesto De Santis writes:
> Hi Erik
>
> Ok, in PrefixQuery cases, non analyze is right.
>
It creates the same problems.
'example*' should find 'example' but does not if 'example' is stemmed
to 'exampl' and you don't analyze the prefix query.
>
> You search "example" and obtain x results.
> You
Erik Hatcher writes:
> >> I think you must have tried this in a transient state when I forgot
> >> to
> >> check in some JavaCC generated files. Try again. This one now
> >> returns
> >> an empty BooleanQuery.
> >>
> > ok.
> > I'm a bit puzzled, since I called javacc myself, so generated files
Daniel Naber writes:
> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 14:46, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
> > > Right. `a AND (NOT b)' parses to `a'
> >
> > Is this what we want to happen for a general purpose next generation
> > Lucene QueryParser though? I'm not sure. Perhaps this should be a
> > ParseException instead?
Erik Hatcher writes:
>
> On Mar 8, 2005, at 4:38 AM, Morus Walter wrote:
> >> I created a modified Query->String converter for my current day time
> >> project (as I use a String representation for the most recently used
> >> drop-down that is stored as a clie
Erik Hatcher writes:
> > ok.
> > I'm a bit puzzled, since I called javacc myself, so generated files
> > should
> > not matter, but if it's fixed, I don't care about what went wrong.
>
> Let me know if there is still an issue, though I added this exact case
> to TestPrecedenceQueryParser and its
Erik Hatcher writes:
> > Your changes look great in general, though I find some issues:
> >
> > 1) 'stop OR stop AND stop' where stop is a stopword gives a parse
> > error:
> > Encountered "" at line 1, column 0.
> > Was expecting one of:
> > ...
> > ...
>
> I think you must have tried this
Hi Erik,
> I've been making local changes to QueryParser to fix the operator
> precedence issues (i.e. currently A AND B OR C AND D parses to +A +B +C
> +D).
>
I had a quick look at the new QP. I didn't look at the code yet, but I
redid my patch at the weekend for the current code, and I found
Niraj Alok writes:
> Hi,
>
> When I am putting the query as 'a not b' there are some documents coming up
> which have 'b' as well.
>
> I am searching on 3 fields using a MultiFieldQueryParser and while debugging
> the query is also getting shown as
> (field1:a -field1:b) (field2:a -field2:b) (fie
Omar Didi writes:
> I checked the code for the patch and I had no clue how to use it.
> can you please give me some instructions?
I guess it just patches QueryParser.jj so
patch < {patchfile}
in the directory where QueryParser.jj is found, should do (on the command
line of course).
If you're on
Omar Didi writes:
> thank you so much Eric and Morus, I have a clear idea now how it works. i
> will try to implement a custom code that adds the parenthesis to boolean
> expressions with some rules about operator precedence.
>
I rather suggest, that you patch QP instead.
Adding parenthesis be
Chris Lu writes:
> 1. Need an efficient way to pick up the most frequent words in an index.
> I think this can be done, any example will be appreciated.
I don't see an alternative to looping through all terms and look at their
frequency.
> 2. search by the most freqent words, with sort by opti
21 matches
Mail list logo
