Hello Igor,
Accessing a potential match during scoring is problematic. Piggibacking on
wrapped boolean query is not an option because when a certain docId is
collected matching legs might reside on previous or next docID.
You can check these for the inspiration
https://lucene.apache.org/core/9_0_0
Terms));
> return queryTerms;
> }
>
> In topDocs you will have the matched documents. And in matchedTerms you
> will have the corresponding terms that are matching.
> I hope this helps you.
>
> Ned
>
> Von: Igor Kustov
> Gesende
he.org
Betreff: Access child boolean query matched terms in parent custom wrapper query
I'm writing custom lucene query which is basically a wrapper around boolean
query with many should clauses.
I want to access this boolean query's matched terms, and then either filter
out this docum
I'm writing custom lucene query which is basically a wrapper around boolean
query with many should clauses.
I want to access this boolean query's matched terms, and then either filter
out this document depending on external statistics on those terms or
proceed with this document without
Hi Tommaso, thanks for the input and links! I'll add your paper to my
literature review.
So far I've seen very promising results from modifying the TermInSetQuery.
It was pretty simple to keep a map of `doc id -> matched term count` and
then only evaluate the exact similarity on the top k doc ids.
On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 13:46 -0400, Alex K wrote:
> My implementation isn't specific to any particular dataset or access
> pattern (i.e. infinite vs. subset).
Without a clearly defined use case, I would say that the sequential
scan approach is not the right one: As these things goes, someone will
hi Alex,
I had worked on a similar problem directly on Lucene (within Anserini
toolkit) using LSH fingerprints of tokenized feature vector values.
You can find code at [1] and some information on the Anserini documentation
page [2] and in a short preprint [3].
As a side note my current thinking is
Hi Toke. Indeed a nice coincidence. It's an interesting and fun problem
space!
My implementation isn't specific to any particular dataset or access
pattern (i.e. infinite vs. subset).
So far the plugin supports exact L1, L2, Jaccard, Hamming, and Angular
similarities with LSH variants for all but
ick response!
> > >
> > > I will look into the TermInSetQuery.
> > >
> > > My usage of "heap" might've been confusing.
> > > I'm using a FunctionScoreQuery from Elasticsearch.
> > > This gets instantiated with a Lucene query, in this cas
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 09:50 -0400, Alex K wrote:
> I'm working on an Elasticsearch plugin (using Lucene internally) that
> allows users to index numerical vectors and run exact and approximate
> k-nearest-neighbors similarity queries.
Quite a coincidence. I'm looking into the same thing :-)
> 1
g.
> > I'm using a FunctionScoreQuery from Elasticsearch.
> > This gets instantiated with a Lucene query, in this case the boolean query
> > as I described it, as well as a custom ScoreFunction object.
> > The ScoreFunction exposes a single method that takes a doc id and
n 23, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alex K wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
> I will look into the TermInSetQuery.
>
> My usage of "heap" might've been confusing.
> I'm using a FunctionScoreQuery from Elasticsearch.
> This gets instantiated with
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the quick response!
I will look into the TermInSetQuery.
My usage of "heap" might've been confusing.
I'm using a FunctionScoreQuery from Elasticsearch.
This gets instantiated with a Lucene query, in this case the boolean query
as I described it,
You might consider using a TermInSetQuery in place of a BooleanQuery
for the hashes (since they are all in the same field).
I don't really understand why you are seeing so much cost in the heap
- it's sounds as if you have a single heap with mixed scores - those
generated by the BooleanQuery and t
Hello all,
I'm working on an Elasticsearch plugin (using Lucene internally) that
allows users to index numerical vectors and run exact and approximate
k-nearest-neighbors similarity queries.
I'd like to get some feedback about my usage of BooleanQueries and
TermQueries, and see if there are any op
7 AM
> To: Lucene Users
> Subject: disableCoord is removed in lucene boolean query?
>
> I am upgrading my project now, I find there is no disableCoord feature in
> boolean query now?
>
> So now the default behavior is disableCoo
I am upgrading my project now, I find there is no disableCoord feature in
boolean query now?
So now the default behavior is disableCoord = true and not configurable?
ems.
>>
>> In your example, try fq=((*:* -documentTypeId:3) AND companyId:29096)
>>
>>Erik
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:15 AM, abhi Abhishek wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I have hit a weird behavior o
In your example, try fq=((*:* -documentTypeId:3) AND companyId:29096)
>
> Erik
>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:15 AM, abhi Abhishek wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> >I have hit a weird behavior of Boolean Query, when I am
> > running the query w
:29096)
Erik
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:15 AM, abhi Abhishek wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>I have hit a weird behavior of Boolean Query, when I am
> running the query with below param’s it’s not behaving as expected. can
> you please help me underst
Hi Everyone,
I have hit a weird behavior of Boolean Query, when I am
running the query with below param’s it’s not behaving as expected. can
you please help me understand the behavior here?
q=*:*&fq=((-documentTypeId:3)+AND+companyId:29096)&version=2.2&start=0&am
d to a keyword analyzer.
>
> My problem is that the query parser removes the " characters. It returns
> the query tag:(01) value1 tag:value2 which becomes
> +(tag:(01) value1 tag:value2) when added to the boolean query and when the
> query is executed it becomes +(tag:(UE) defau
keyword analyzer.
My problem is that the query parser removes the " characters. It returns
the query tag:(01) value1 tag:value2 which becomes
+(tag:(01) value1 tag:value2) when added to the boolean query and when
the query is executed it becomes +(tag:(UE) default_field:value1
tag:value2)
S
ser@lucene.apache.org; java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: AW: Lucene Boolean Query Minimization
>
> Just an idea: could it be optimized by boolean Algebra?
>
> Gruss, Ralf
>
> Gesendet vom Mobiltelefon
>
> Originalnachricht
> Von: Uwe Schindler
> Gesendet: Montag, 2.
The question here is: is a 'smaller' boolean query consuming less ressources?
Gruss, Ralf
Gesendet vom Mobiltelefon
Originalnachricht
Von: Ralf Heyde
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Februar 2015 16:28
An: java-user@lucene.apache.org; java-user@lucene.apache.org
Antwort an:
Just an idea: could it be optimized by boolean Algebra?
Gruss, Ralf
Gesendet vom Mobiltelefon
Originalnachricht
Von: Uwe Schindler
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Februar 2015 16:25
An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Antwort an: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Lucene Boolean Query Minimization
Hi,
You don't give an example of the type of Boolean query you want to "minimize".
I have no idea "how" it could be optimized without that information. If a
Boolean query contains only one clause, it is rewritten automatically to be the
query of its single clause (wit
Hey all,
I have a large boolean query in lucene which can be minimized to a smaller
version with fewer clauses. Does Lucene automatically minimize complex
boolean queries to simpler versions before executing them?
If not, are there are predefined ways to do so?
--
Regards,
Apurv
The highlighters are the only thing I know of (in trunk) that do
something like that.
Work on this branch
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12317158) is
an attempt to make that more efficient.
In general the problem with doing this during scoring (the filtering
doc
Hello
While searching a query, I guess that Lucene traverses a
Field->Term->DocId structure, filters the docIds that satisfy the query,
score them and then sort them
Given a resulting docId, I would like a way to find at least a valid
path (or the first valid path or all valid paths) that ma
olean query (LUCENE 4.3)
Hi
I know how to get the docFreq of a term in a single field (say "content" field)
int docFreqInIndex = indexReader.docFreq(new Term("content", q));
But is it possible to get the docFreq of a boolean query consisting of matches
across two or
Hi
I know how to get the docFreq of a term in a single field (say "content" field)
int docFreqInIndex = indexReader.docFreq(new Term("content", q));
But is it possible to get the docFreq of a boolean query consisting of matches
across two or more fields? For inst
x27;t want, then you need to escape it.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Ankit Murarka
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:36 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Query type always Boolean Query even if * and ? are present.
BingoThis has solved my case... Thanks
AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Query type always Boolean Query even if * and ? are present.
If I remove the escape call from the function, then it works as
expected.. Prefix/Boolean/Wildcard..
But this is NOT what I want... The escape should be present else I will
get lexical err
Boolean Query even if * and ? are present.
Hello.
I am faced with a trivial issue: Everytime my Query is being fired as a
Boolean Query...
Providing Input : \*
This input is provided. Since this contains special characters I use
escape method of QueryParser (removed escaping for * and ? since
BingoThis has solved my case... Thanks a ton..!!
Does this mean any input containing spaces and query being parsed using
QueryParser will result in Query type as Boolean Query UNLESS white
space is escaped..
So if the input contains white space and parsed using QueryParser it
will
I also tried it with this query:
*
I am still getting it as Boolean Query.. It should be Prefix...
On 9/12/2013 8:50 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
The trailing asterisk in your query input is escaped with a backslash,
so the query parser will not treat it as a wildcard.
-- Jack Krupansky
needed..
TIA..
On 9/12/2013 8:52 PM, Ankit Murarka wrote:
I also tried it with this query:
*
I am still getting it as Boolean Query.. It should be Prefix...
On 9/12/2013 8:50 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
The trailing asterisk in your query input is escaped with a
backslash, so the query parser
Hello.
I am faced with a trivial issue: Everytime my Query is being fired as a
Boolean Query...
Providing Input : \*
This input is provided. Since this contains special characters I use
escape method of QueryParser (removed escaping for * and ? since they
are needed for WildCard and Prefix
Hello.
My main aim is following:
a. Index both on line and doc basis (Line basis for providing phrase
suggestions/infix suggestions. Doc basis for Firing
booleanquery/wildcard query etc.)
b. Yeah for boolean/wildcard etc user input will be "xxx" and "yyy" and
I will show document name.
c. W
On 08/21/2013 09:51 AM, Ankit Murarka wrote:
> Yeah..I eventually DID THIS
>
> Just a small question : Knowing that BooleanQuery/PrefixQuery/WildCardQuery
> might also run fine even if I index the complete document as opposed to doing
> it Line by Line. Shouldn't I do it this way rather tha
Yeah..I eventually DID THIS
Just a small question : Knowing that
BooleanQuery/PrefixQuery/WildCardQuery might also run fine even if I
index the complete document as opposed to doing it Line by Line.
Shouldn't I do it this way rather than indexing each line for
Boolean/Prefix/Wildcard als
On 08/21/2013 08:38 AM, Ankit Murarka wrote:
> Hello.
> I tried with
>
> doc.add(new Field("contents",line,Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.ANALYZED));
>
> The BooleanQuery/PrefixMatch/WildCard all started Running fine..
>
> But it broke the Existing code for Phrase Suggestion/InfixSuggester. Now
>
Hello.
I tried with
doc.add(new Field("contents",line,Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.ANALYZED));
The BooleanQuery/PrefixMatch/WildCard all started Running fine..
But it broke the Existing code for Phrase Suggestion/InfixSuggester. Now
these suggesters are returning Word suggestion instead of Phr
On 08/19/2013 08:17 AM, Ankit Murarka wrote:
> doc.add(new StringField("contents",line,Field.Store.YES));
Did you try with:
doc.add(new Field("contents",line,Field.Store.YES));
?
--
Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void displayQuery(Query query) {
System.out.println("Query: " + query.toString());
}
}
I would like to mention the problem once again:
Parsing each document line by line to build up indexes and then firing a
Boolean query i
llows:
I have a document containing information in lines. So I am indexing all
files line by line.
So If I say in my document I have,
INSIDE POST OF SERVER\
and in my index file created I have,
INSIDE POST OF SERVER\
and I fire a boolean query with INSIDE and POST wit
as been indexed?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Ankit Murarka
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello. The problem is as follows:
>>>
>>> I have a document containing information in lin
ave a document containing information in lines. So I am indexing all
files line by line.
So If I say in my document I have,
INSIDE POST OF SERVER\
and in my index file created I have,
INSIDE POST OF SERVER\
and I fire a boolean query with INSIDE and POST with MUST/MUST,
in my index file created I have,
> INSIDE POST OF SERVER\
>
> and I fire a boolean query with INSIDE and POST with MUST/MUST, I am getting
> no HIT.
>
> I am providing the complete CODE I am using to create INDEX and TO
> SEARCH..Both are drawn from sample code p
3 7:43 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
Well, you have supplied a bit more info - good - but I still can't
spot the problem. Unless someone else can I suggest you post a very
small self-contained program that demonstrates the problem.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Ankit Murarka
wrote:
Hello.
ntents:INSIDE contents:POST */ --/The field name
> is contents. Same analyzer is being used. This is a boolean query./
>
> To test, I indexed only 20 files. In 19 files, this is present.
>
> The boolean query should give me a hit for this document.
>
> BUT IT IS RET
ield
name is contents. Same analyzer is being used. This is a boolean query./
To test, I indexed only 20 files. In 19 files, this is present.
The boolean query should give me a hit for this document.
BUT IT IS RETURNING ME NO HIT..
If I index the same files WITHOUT line by line then, it gives
query on this line. It suggest me the
> possible values. No problem,.
> 3. If I fire a Boolean Query with "remedialaction" and "Checking" as a
> must/must , then it is not providing me this document as a hit.
> 4. I am using StandardAnalyzer both during the indexing an
If I fire a Boolean Query with "remedialaction" and "Checking" as a
must/must , then it is not providing me this document as a hit.
4. I am using StandardAnalyzer both during the indexing and searching time.
On 8/13/2013 2:31 PM, Ian Lea wrote:
Should be straightforward eno
n Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Ankit Murarka
wrote:
> Hello All,
>I have 2 different usecases.
> I am trying to provide both boolean query and phrase search query in the
> application.
>
> In every line of the document which I am indexing I have content like
Hello All,
I have 2 different usecases.
I am trying to provide both boolean query and phrase search query in the
application.
In every line of the document which I am indexing I have content like :
\
Due to the phrase search requirement, I am indexing each line of the
file as
:52 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Boolean Query not working in Lucene 4.0
The following query does not seems to work after we upgrade from 2.4 - 4.0
*+type:sometype +title:sometitle**
Any ideas as to what are some of the places to look for? Is the above Query
correct in syntax
context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Boolean-Query-not-working-in-Lucene-4-0-tp4043246.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
text analytics
and we need the counts for each matched boolean clause for statistics
purpose)
As a workaround, I create a filter using the original boolean query, cache
it, and fire each boolean sub-query subsequently. This has given me a lot
of performance gain (these are initial observations, am
all
scorers score document-at-a-time) ... would be nice if someone wrote
up some example code showing how to do it...
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Ashish Jaen wrote:
> Is there a way to know which sub-clause of a boolean query matched in
I'll reply to the thread with your comment from our IM chat in case it helps
anyone else thinking about this.
In response to what is preferred, boolean query w/ term queries or a term
filter+term query and if order in the boolean query somehow matters:
we take care of this internaly
no m
hey josh,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Josh Devins wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm hoping someone can shed some light on how filters and boolean queries
> work under the hood. As I understand it, the following two queries are
> functionally equivalent:
>
> boolean must, term query: foo, boolean mu
Hi folks,
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on how filters and boolean queries
work under the hood. As I understand it, the following two queries are
functionally equivalent:
boolean must, term query: foo, boolean must, term query: bar
term query: foo, term filter: bar
What I'd like to unde
Hi,
as far as I can see, boolean scorers always sum up scores of their
sub-scorers. It works, but in case of my application it's required to
multiply sub-scores.
Is there a simple/efficient way to do this (apart from modifying
lucene's source code)?
It seems to me that standard tricks (e.g. Custom
Hi,
As, mention above i am using query like:
criteria = (sql OR sqlserver OR "sql server") AND java AND delphi
In the above scenario i need hit(document) containing at least one occurrence
of (sql OR sqlserver OR "sql server"). Also java and delphi must present in
document.
Still I have not g
Hi Ian;
As you told we can use explicitly specify ANDs and ORs operator set parser.
Otherwise we can use default parser to get hit(document) which is ORs. Do not
gives correct hit(document)!!!
My question is that, Is there any parser we can use in case of multiple Boolean
clause in search stri
; in code below:
>
> QueryParser parser = new QueryParser(Version.LUCENE_CURRENT, field,
> analyzer); parser.setDefaultOperator(QueryParser.OR_OPERATOR);
>
> Query query = parser.parse(criteria);
>
> which is not correct. please! suggest me feasible solution.
>
> how could get correct docu
suggest me feasible solution.
how could get correct document in case of multiple Boolean query in search
criteria?
Thanks & Regards,
Ranjit Kumar
===
Private, Confidential and Privileged. This e-mail and
p = (ScoreDoc) pq.updateTop();
}
Because the scorer in BooleanScorer2 is
ConjuctionScorer(DisjuctionScorer). it can not get tf.
If you want to do this. you have to modify many codes
2010/12/25 Ranjit Kumar
> Hi,
>
> Merry Christmas!!
>
>
>
> In case of Boolean query like *
Hi,
Merry Christmas!!
In case of Boolean query like 'sql AND server' .
I am using parser to get correct document containing both sql and server.
Inside for loop in below code I get correct documented and to get frequency I
need to sum frequency of 'sql' and 'serv
e.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Unexpected Results - using should and must in boolean query
>
>
> : If you have some MUST terms, but you also want to have at least one of a
> : list of other terms (like 5 SHOULD clauses), the trick is to separate
both:
> : Create a BooleanQuery wi
: If you have some MUST terms, but you also want to have at least one of a
: list of other terms (like 5 SHOULD clauses), the trick is to separate both:
: Create a BooleanQuery with 2 MUST clauses, one is your required TermQuery
: and the second clause is itself a BooleanQuery with all the SHOULD
---
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: liat oren [mailto:oren.l...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 2:04 PM
> > To: java-user@l
bject: Unexpected Results - using should and must in boolean query
>
> Hi,
>
> I am running a query and get some unexpected results.
>
> When I run boolean query on a text field for the word X, using occur =
SHOULD,
> the results contain the word X.
>
> However, when I add
unning a query and get some unexpected results.
>
> When I run boolean query on a text field for the word X, using occur =
> SHOULD, the results contain the word X.
>
> However, when I add another boolean query on another field (country) for
> the
> word Y, using occur = MUST, in
Hi,
I am running a query and get some unexpected results.
When I run boolean query on a text field for the word X, using occur =
SHOULD, the results contain the word X.
However, when I add another boolean query on another field (country) for the
word Y, using occur = MUST, in the results I get
> 7-P3
>
> ..
>
> ..
>
> when i search
> docs with P2 I get 3,4,5
>
> Now I want my search to b restricted to just
> 3,4,5 doc only. where by I can search only these docs for further
> parameters.
>
> 1. How to go abt it.
Boolean query with multiple nested quer
Hi ,
I have 4 query search fields.
case 1 : if i use one search
field to make a query filter and then use the query filter to search on
other 3 fields so as to reduce the searching docs subset.
case 2: i use
all query parameters using boolean query , whole of index will be searched
Thanks for you help.
I upgrade the lucene to 2.9.1, the problem is gone. It looks like a boolean
query bug in the lucene 2.9.0 and fixed in the 2.9.1
Thanks
> From: ian@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:02:27 +
> Subject: Re: confused by the lucene boolean query with
You should probably be using your PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper in your
calls to QueryParser but apart from that I can't see any obvious
reason. General advice: use Luke to check what has been indexed and
read
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Why_am_I_getting_no_hits_.2BAC8_incorrect_hits.3
Hi, I have the following test case point to the index generated in our
application. The result is confusing me and I don't know the reason.
Lucene version: 2.9.0
JDK 1.6.0_18
public class IndexTest1 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
FSDirectory directory =
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, vanshi wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have a situation where a field is indexed like this
>> (FAC_NAME(Field.Store.NO, Field.Index.NO_NORMS)) and keyword analyzer is
>> used on this field. Although, I'm aware t
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, vanshi wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have a situation where a field is indexed like this
> (FAC_NAME(Field.Store.NO, Field.Index.NO_NORMS)) and keyword analyzer is
> used on this field. Although, I'm aware that NO_NORMS doesn't use any
> analyzer.
>
> Now, the query +
; field??
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/how-to-deal-with-too-many-clause-error-in-boolean-query.-tp24080152p24080152.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsu
Let's say I have 3 fields in a document (Type, FirstName, and LastName). For
example:
Document 0
--
Type: Public
FirstName: John
LastName: Deere
If I execute the following boolean query, document 0 is returned.
Type:Public OR FirstName:Candy OR LastName:
9 jul 2008 kl. 07.37 skrev Cam Bazz:
Hello,
Is it possible to make a boolean query where a word is equal to
fieldA or
fieldB?
in other words, I like to search a word in two fields, if word
passes in
fieldA or fieldB, then it is a hit.
XOR?
+(A B) -(+A +B)
karl
Hello,
Is it possible to make a boolean query where a word is equal to fieldA or
fieldB?
in other words, I like to search a word in two fields, if word passes in
fieldA or fieldB, then it is a hit.
Best,
-C.B.
t OR TTL:store => 1,496 results
>> > > 3. TTL:variable AND TTL:computer OR TTL:device => 1,496 results
>> > >
>> > > I hope you have a clearer picture of my issue now.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Sonu
>> &g
now.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sonu
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Erick Erickson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> It's unclear what you *should* expect. How
y documents do you have? In this example,
> >> for instance,
> >> 1. TTL:data AND TTL:store OR TTL:variable => 3,733 results
> >> it considered the TTL:data part only.
> >>
> >> it's perfecily reasonable if every document that had "variable&quo
considered the TTL:data part only.
>>
>> it's perfecily reasonable if every document that had "variable" in the
>> field *also* has "data" and "store" in the field. So your numbers
>> don't give us much to work with.
>>
>&
7;t give us much to work with.
>
> Remember, though, that Lucene syntax isn't a pure boolean syntax. See
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BooleanQuerySyntax
>
> And when in doubt parenthesize ...
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Sonu S
x
And when in doubt parenthesize ...
Best
Erick
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Sonu Sudhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some issue with boolean queries.
>
> I am using Lucene-core-2.3.1.
>
> I have done test on boolean query with 3 terms (data, s
Hi,
I have some issue with boolean queries.
I am using Lucene-core-2.3.1.
I have done test on boolean query with 3 terms (data, store, variable) in my
TTL field. The TTL field is indexed and searched using StandardAnalyzer.
The three terms when searched individually gave the following result
What about ConstantScoreQuery?
Erick
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Wojtek H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Suppose my query has "normal" part for which I want score as usual and
> other part which is big disjunction (OR) query for which I just want
> documents to match and don't car
Hi all,
Suppose my query has "normal" part for which I want score as usual and
other part which is big disjunction (OR) query for which I just want
documents to match and don't care about scoring. Is there a way to
make it fast?
As far as I understand if 'no-score' part was the same in many querie
Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:23 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boolean Query search performance
: > additional parens normally indicates that you are actually creating
an
: > extra layer of BooleanQueries
: > additional parens normally indicates that you are actually creating an
: > extra layer of BooleanQueries (ie: a BooleanQuery with only one clause for
: look here,
: parens will also be add is each term has a boost value larger than 1.0.
i think you are missreading that code. the "needParens
Thanks for all replies.
Today when I printed out the query that's generated it does not have the
extra paren's. And query.rewrite(reader).toString() now gives the same
result as query.toString(). All I can figure is I must have changed
something between starting the email and sending it out. The o
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
