ge you to get a copy of Lucene In Action
> since that'll
> give you a much more thorough explication of tokenizing than I can.
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On 2/9/07, Xavier To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, thanks a lot for taking so much time here..
TECTED]>
Date: Jeudi, Février 8, 2007 5:13 pm
Objet: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Question concerning Analyzers
> See below
>
> On 2/8/07, Xavier To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for helping me.
> >
> > I don't really understand wha
you want, I'd really recommend is that you
> make your
> own custom Analyzer, built on, say, WhitespaceTokenizer,
> LowerCaseFilter.This is usually the way I've approached this kind
> of problem. And use *that*
> one at index and query time.
>
> There's an exa
gt; Just for yucks, I'd try using WhitespaceAnalyzer on a query with
> somethingyou *know* exists in the index for a particular field and
> work my way up to
> whatever your real problem is in small steps (since you can't post
> code)..
>
> Best
> Erick
&
he same analyzer to search as
>
> you used to index. So, yes, you could certainly index things and
> ignore them during a search.
>
> Erik
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Xavier To wrote:
>
> > Hi, me again
> >
> > I'm still stuck wi
Hi, me again
I'm still stuck with my search engine, but something popped in my head : Can an
analyzer index something but ignore it during a search ? I'm asking this
because now that I've been searching for an answer, I've come to think that I
should redo the whole search engine, but I don't wa
; Lucene will only search the default field with the queries you have
> shown. If, for instance the year was being stored in the "year"
> field, then your query should be
> report AND year:2003
>
> HTH
>
> - Original Message
> From: Xavier To <[EMAIL PRO
at the actual query submitted with
> Query.toString()?That might give you an insight into what is
> actually being submitted to
> Lucene and a place to start.
>
> Also be aware that QueryParser, the default operator is OR which
> can produce
> unexpected results if you assum
numbers you might want to add another regex to
> StandardAnalyzer that recognizes a series of digits - don't forget
> to add
> the new token type to the grammar lower in the StandardTokenizer.jj
> file.
> - Mark
>
> On 2/5/07, Xavier To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
Thanks for taking time to answer me. The problem is that I'm not allowed to
post code due to a confidentiality contract that I was required to sign. I'll
try to see if I can get a special permission to post code since I'm wasting so
much time trying to find the answer to this.
I tried looking f
10 matches
Mail list logo
