Hi,
I am still learning about the performance implications of Lucene's APIs when
aggregating large
result sets. It seems that some cases require a deeper understanding of Lucenes
internals and the
use of not-so-front-facing APIs.
For some time I am struggling with poor grouping/ aggreg
How can I filter resent data from matched result by grouping date field
for example
I annote my entity as follows
hsno column for
@Field(index=Index.YES, analyze=Analyze.YES, store=Store.YES)
date column for
@Field(index = Index.YES, analyze=Analyze.NO, store = Store.YES)
kor column for
@Field
Hi all,
On experimenting with Lucene Group Search in Lucene 4.10,
Once Field Cache is formed,
We recorded better performance with Field cache compared to doc values.
So I decided to avoid doc values on that field.
Our Index involves 80% of updates.
How much will this affect field cache?
Is it
Thanks everyone.
For our use case in Rocana Search, we don't use scoring at all. We always
sort by a timestamp field present in every Document, so for us Lucene query
logic is always truly boolean - we only want exact matches using boolean
logic like you would get from a database query.
That bein
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> Lucene query logic is not strict Boolean logic, the article above explains
> why.
tl;dr it mostly comes down to scoring and syntax.
The scoring argument will depend on how much you care. (My care for
scoring is pretty close to zero, as I
ote:
>> I have a question about the meaning and behavior of grouping behavior with
>> Lucene queries.
>
> For this query:
>
> host:host_1 AND (NOT location:location_5)
>
> The right hand side is:
>
> NOT location:location_5
>
> Which matches nothing,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Michael Peterson wrote:
> I have a question about the meaning and behavior of grouping behavior with
> Lucene queries.
For this query:
host:host_1 AND (NOT location:location_5)
The right hand side is:
NOT location:location_5
Which matches nothi
I have a question about the meaning and behavior of grouping behavior with
Lucene queries.
In particular, here is the scenario I am testing. I have indexed 1,000
documents.
|---+---+---|
| # | Query String | Result
Hi Taher,
Solr has the function of result grouping.
I think it has two steps. First, it tries to find how many groups are there in
the result
and choose top groups (say 10 groups) using a priority queue. Second, provide
10 priority
queues for each groups and search again to collect second or
Hi,
I have a tree structure of documents, with a document having multiple
parents. This is mapped in the Lucene index using a multivaluefield when
indexing as so:
Document doc = new Document();
doc.add(new Field("uuid","value",MYFIELDTYPE.NOTANALYZED);
doc.add(new Field("parent","parent",MYFIELDT
Hi,
I was wondering how to extend the grouping lucene functionality as I am not
sure how the values of the field are grouped therefore making me group them
faster any tutorial or direction would be great
Thanks,
Taher Galal
Hi,
I'm just getting started with Lucene for e-commerce. Thanks to awesome blog
posts from Shai and Mike, I'm up and running with drill sideways, faceting
and single pass grouping, but am unsure how to smooth a few things out
around faceting and grouping.
Here's what I'm stuc
-- Forwarded message --
Subject: any project for record linkage, fuzzy grouping, and deduplication
based on Solr/Lucene?
For example, given a new big department merged from three departments. A
few employees worked for two or three departments before merging. That
means, the
TermFirstPassGroupingCollector loads all terms for a given group-by field,
through FieldCache.
Is it possible to instruct the class to group only pruned terms of a field,
based on a user-supplied query [RangeQuery, TermQuery etc...]
This way, only pruned terms are grouped and all others are ignor
Thanks Uwe !
For part (1) of my query are there any smart ways ?
Arun
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > With prior warming i find that (a) & (b) take almost same time. I knew
> that
> > only when we reuse the Filter we get its benefits.
> > (c) takes around 30
Hi,
> With prior warming i find that (a) & (b) take almost same time. I knew that
> only when we reuse the Filter we get its benefits.
> (c) takes around 30-40ms less time.
>
> Can we conclude from this that method (c) is better ?
> Is my choice Bitset implementation appropriate ?
Use FixedBitS
Hi Guys,
I am using Lucene 4.2.
1> For my use case i am doing a search say name:xyz* and then i have a need
to do a grouping with (from query same as name:xyz* + Filter + GroupSort)
may be in same/different thread.
>From my understanding the second internal search will be faster but i hav
Hello,
In my understanding, there is no explicit way to group/facet on
tokenized fields. We have older indices and are planning to implement
faceting on those indices. All the fields in the indices use a
ClassicAnalyzer and are tokenized.
Is there a work around, through whic
artijn.is.h...@gmail.com [mailto:martijn.is.h...@gmail.com] 代表
> Martijn v Groningen
> 发送时间: 2013年2月11日 19:29
> 收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> 主题: Re: About the Sorting of Groups during Grouping by
>
> Hi,
>
> My purpose is trying to sort the groups based on some way of
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> wrote:
>
> >> Can you give an example of what you mean by multi-level grouping?
> >
> > Say for instance
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
wrote:
>> Can you give an example of what you mean by multi-level grouping?
>
> Say for instance, I have indexed a library, with the following fields.
> published_year, language, genre, author and title.
>
> Now my obj
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Michael McCandless <
> > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> >
>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> Just use the 2-pass grouping if you can't index your groups as a block of
>> docs.
>>
>>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Just use the 2-pass grouping if you can't index your groups as a block of
> docs.
>
> See
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/grouping/org/apache/lucene/search/grouping/package-s
Just use the 2-pass grouping if you can't index your groups as a block of docs.
See
http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/grouping/org/apache/lucene/search/grouping/package-summary.html
for examples...
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Rampr
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Well, you don't need to "store" both copies since they will be the same.
> They both need to be "indexed" (string form for grouping, text form for
> keyword search), but only one needs to be "stored&
Well, you don't need to "store" both copies since they will be the same.
They both need to be "indexed" (string form for grouping, text form for
keyword search), but only one needs to be "stored".
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Ra
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Oops, sorry for the "Solr" answer. In Lucene you need to simply index the
> same value, once as a raw string and a second time as a tokenized text
> field. Grouping would use the raw string version of the data.
>
&g
Oops, sorry for the "Solr" answer. In Lucene you need to simply index the
same value, once as a raw string and a second time as a tokenized text
field. Grouping would use the raw string version of the data.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky
Se
Okay, so, fields that would normally need to be tokenized must be stored as
both raw strings for grouping and tokenized text for keyword search. Simply
use copyField to copy from one to the other.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
Sent: Monday
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Please clarify exactly what you want to group by - give a specific example
> that makes it clear what terms should affect grouping and which shouldn't.
>
Assume I am indexing a library data. Say there are the followin
Please clarify exactly what you want to group by - give a specific example
that makes it clear what terms should affect grouping and which shouldn't.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:12 AM
To: java
: About the Sorting of Groups during Grouping by
Hi,
My purpose is trying to sort the groups based on some way of aggregation
> values of the scores of all the documents in each group, such as their
sums
> or averages.
>
At the moment this isn't possible out of the box. You could
Dear List,
I've made through the demo code for grouping search using
TermFirstPassGroupingCollector and TermSecondPassGroupingCollector.
However, the sorting of resulted groups is determined by the scores of the
top-one documents in each group. ( Everyone of these documents has the
hi
Dear,
I've made through the demo code for grouping search using
TermFirstPassGroupingCollector and TermSecondPassGroupingCollector.
However, the sorting of resulted groups is determined by the scores of the
top-one documents in each group. ( Everyone of these documents has the
highest sco
Yeah, but IndexSorter is offline. I need an online sorter. The trouble is
as Mike pointed out, the delta encodings are forward only. I do not know of
an available encoding to do this.
--
Ravi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
> If you are only interested in doc addition sorting
If you are only interested in doc addition sorting, then it should be easy
to reverse the doc orders in each segment, using something like IndexSorter.
Shai
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Ravikumar Govindarajan <
ravikumar.govindara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Shai,
>
> I would only want to sort
Hi Shai,
I would only want to sort based on doc additions. Ex: d1,d2,d3. Then true
sort order means d3,d2,d1. Doc timestamp based solution is much more
involved like you said
It's nice to know that you are already working on it and there will be a
solution in the near future.
In the meantime, I
Hi Ravi,
I've been dealing with reverse indexing lately, so let me share with you a
bit of my experience thus far.
First, you need to define what does reverse indexing mean for you. If it
means that docs that were indexed in the following order: d1, d2, d3 should
be traversed during search in tha
But, I think it should be possible with some fun codec & merge policy
& MultiReader magic, to have docIDs assigned in "reverse chronological
order"
Can you explain it a bit more? I was thinking perhaps we store absolute
doc-ids instead of delta to do reverse traversal. But this could waste a
lot o
On 11/20/2012 6:49 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Ravikumar Govindarajan
wrote:
Also, for a TopN query sorted by doc-id will the query terminate early?
Actually, it won't! But it really should ... you could make a
Collector that throws an exception once the N
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Ravikumar Govindarajan
wrote:
> Thanks Mike. Actually, I think I can eliminate sort-by-time, if I am able
> to iterate postings in reverse doc-id order. Is this possible in lucene?
Alas that is not easy to do in Lucene: the posting lists are encoded
in forward doc
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote
> Yes, this is possible using Lucene's grouping APIs.
>
> It looks like index time grouping won't work, since you get the same
> parent spread out across time, but you can use the two-pass grouping
> instead ... run the FirstPassGroupingCollect
Yes, this is possible using Lucene's grouping APIs.
It looks like index time grouping won't work, since you get the same
parent spread out across time, but you can use the two-pass grouping
instead ... run the FirstPassGroupingCollector on each shard, get the
top groups from each, m
If the time span or website (I assume you mean domain name) is a field
in your index then you can use result grouping.
Result grouping has impact on your query time and if you have a lot of
data you need to divide your data across multiple
indices and use distributed result grouping.
Martijn
On
ough for you
on your data? Who knows - try it and see.
Group based on all docs? Don't see why not. The example in the
javadocs uses a TermQuery. Try a MatchAllDocsQuery instead.
--
Ian.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 齐保元 wrote:
> Hi,there.I meet a problem to grouping the search resu
Hi All,
Sorry... I give wrong example, should be like this actually..
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Robby wrote:
> - Grouping 1, count : 3
> - row id = 1
> - row id = 23
> - row id = 100
> - Grouping 2
> - row id = 11
> - row id = 13
Hi Everyone,
I'm quite new to Lucene and would like to ask if my case below is possible
with Lucene solution.
Let's say I have 200,000 rows from a relational table with multiple fields,
and I will have them indexed with Lucene. After indexing, I'd like to have
a grouping / clus
Brilliant, that looks perfect. We're currently using an older version of
Lucene in which this was an experimental class. Looks like we should
upgrade.
Thanks
Jim
On 5 August 2011 02:10, Trejkaz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Jim Swainston
> wrote:
> > So if the Text input is:
> >
>
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Jim Swainston
wrote:
> So if the Text input is:
>
> Marketing AND Smith OR Davies
>
> I want my program to work out that this should be grouped as the following
> (as AND has higher precedence than OR):
>
> (Marketing AND Smith) OR Davies.
>
> I'm effectively lookin
>
> : > : Thanks Ian. How would you achieve the logic of the below query using
> : > : BooleanQuery and BooleanClause.occur? How would you achieve the
> grouping
> : > : effect?
> : > :
> : > : (Marketing AND Smith) OR Davies
>
> ...and i said...
>
of the below query using
: > : BooleanQuery and BooleanClause.occur? How would you achieve the grouping
: > : effect?
: > :
: > : (Marketing AND Smith) OR Davies
...and i said...
: > The same way the query parser does: that's a BooleanQuery (A) with two
: > "SHOULD
that they follow the order of Boolean precedence?
On 4 August 2011 02:05, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : Thanks Ian. How would you achieve the logic of the below query using
> : BooleanQuery and BooleanClause.occur? How would you achieve the grouping
> : effect?
> :
> : (Ma
: Thanks Ian. How would you achieve the logic of the below query using
: BooleanQuery and BooleanClause.occur? How would you achieve the grouping
: effect?
:
: (Marketing AND Smith) OR Davies
The same way the query parser does: that's a BooleanQuery (A) with two
"SHOULD" clause
Thanks Ian. How would you achieve the logic of the below query using
BooleanQuery and BooleanClause.occur? How would you achieve the grouping
effect?
(Marketing AND Smith) OR Davies
Thanks a lot.
Jim
On 3 August 2011 14:54, Ian Lea wrote:
> I don't think there is an easy way. Brac
I don't think there is an easy way. Brackets are the official way to
do it with the query parser:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_3_0/queryparsersyntax.html#Grouping
For anything non-trivial I prefer to build up queries in code using
BooleanQuery. That way it is comparatively easy to bui
Hi,
I'm having trouble thinking of a way to effectively group clauses to form
sub queries. For example, I need to handle the following query:
Marketing AND Smith OR Davies.
Lucene is currently parsing this as +Marketing +Smith Davies meaning that
results where only the term Davies is found are
s does not give me what I want
> because
> other words may appear between [ship] and [cr]/[ck]/[creek] leading to false
> positives.
>
> What I need to know is how to approach treating the two consecutive words as
> a single
> term and add the notational variants as synonyms. So,
the notational variants as synonyms. So, in a nutshell I
need the basic
stuff provided by StandardAnalyzer, but with term grouping to emit place
names
as complete terms and insert synonymous terms to cover the variants.
For instance, the text "...allowed from the mouth of Ship Creek upstream
;> Have you looked at Solr and date faceting capabilities? Also, it has
>> result grouping, but I think you are just describing faceting/filtering.
>
> SOLR is not an option, we are already have the index (>2 million pages some
> with 100,000 terms).
> What I'm looking to d
On 23/03/2011 17:55, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Have you looked at Solr and date faceting capabilities? Also, it has result
grouping, but I think you are just describing faceting/filtering.
SOLR is not an option, we are already have the index (>2 million pages
some with 100,000 terms).
W
On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Dawn Zoë Raison wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Before I run off and reinvent the wheel here - has anyone done any form of
> result grouping with lucene?
>
> My use case looks something like this:
> Newspaper pages are stored as documents in the luce
Hi Folks,
Before I run off and reinvent the wheel here - has anyone done any form
of result grouping with lucene?
My use case looks something like this:
Newspaper pages are stored as documents in the lucene index.
I need to list the newpapers that match my criteria in date order, so
that I
Message
> From: Паша Минченков
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, May 31, 2010 4:15:40 PM
> Subject: Grouping or de-duping
>
> Sorry for my similar questions. I need to remove duplicates from
> search
results for a given field (or group by). Documents on
help. In searching for an answer I found references to
SimpleFacetParameters, but I do not understand how this material can be
useful to me because it refers to the project Solr. Maybe someone has an
example of grouping searh result or something like DeDupinQuery.
On the link below, I found a sol
--- On Tue, 8/25/09, Henric Müller wrote:
> From: Henric Müller
> Subject: Lucene query syntax using grouping, MUST, MUST_NOT and SHOULD
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 12:20 PM
> Hi,
>
> I have experience some strange things when
Hi,
I have experience some strange things when dealing with Lucene queries.
I've read some threads on this list and realize that Lucene shouldn't be
seen as a complete boolean query language. However I try to understand
the Lucene-way and have one example that I wonder if someone can help me
to do to begin finding/evaluating
questions and answers.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Amin Mohammed-Coleman
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:54:59 AM
> Subject: Re: question a
ile and try and group them, but then it gets really intense into
>> pattern matching.
>>
>> Thanks
>> MFM
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/question-about-grouping-text-tp22682433p22682433.html
>> Sent from the Lucene - Java User
ntext:
http://www.nabble.com/question-about-grouping-text-tp22682433p22682433.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For addit
://www.nabble.com/question-about-grouping-text-tp22682433p22682433.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e
tempUri = tempUri
>> +
>> uris[i];
>>}else {
>>tempUri = tempUri
>> +
>> uris[i]+QueryParser.OR_OPERATOR;
&g
}
>}
>
> query = mfqp.parse(orgQuery+ QueryParser.AND_OPERATOR+ tempUri );
>
>
>
> is this is the correct way to form a Query..?? Are there any other
> methods?
>
> --
> View this message
}
query = mfqp.parse(orgQuery+ QueryParser.AND_OPERATOR+ tempUri );
is this is the correct way to form a Query..?? Are there any other
methods?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Grouping-of-Boolean-opeartors-in-Lucene..-
Steven A Rowe wrote:
Korean has been treated differently from Chinese and Japanese since
LUCENE-461 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-461>. The
grouping of Hangul with digits was introduced in this issue.
Certainly I found LUCENE-461 during my search, and certainly gr
tokenized.
Korean has been treated differently from Chinese and Japanese since LUCENE-461
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-461>. The grouping of Hangul
with digits was introduced in this issue.
> I'm wondering if there was some good reason why it isn't:
>
> ALP
Hi all.
I have a question about Korean tokenisation. Currently there is a rule
in StandardTokenizerImpl.jflex which looks like this:
ALPHANUM = ({LETTER}|{DIGIT}|{KOREAN})+
I'm wondering if there was some good reason why it isn't:
ALPHANUM = (({LETTER}|{DIGIT})+|{KOREAN}+)
Basically I'
Sure. You can either build up the string and let QueryParser handle it
or construct your very own BooleanQuery appropriately. The second
is what I'd try first.
Best
Erick
On 10/8/07, Cool Coder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If Solr will work for you, it has faceting built in.
> Let me check wit
>If Solr will work for you, it has faceting built in.
Let me check with Solr, whether I can use Solr.
>> My next question is very simple, I just wanted to search more than one field
>> something like search for "kbk pencil" in "description" field and
>> >>"manufacturer" field. Can I use BooleanQ
On 10/8/07, Cool Coder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just started working on a lucene based project and I need your help on the
> following queries.
> The result of search needs to show a summary based on a Field value.
> One of the field in the search Document is "type" with some possible values
Hello Gurus,
I just started working on a lucene based project and I need your help on the
following queries.
The result of search needs to show a summary based on a Field value.
One of the field in the search Document is "type" with some possible values
like "good" , "bad", "bett
tp://www.nabble.com/query-problem%3A-grouping-%22with-same-field%22-tf3181355.html#a8828462
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
listings.
What would it be the best approach for this?
Thanks a lot
D
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/query-problem%3A-grouping-%22with-same-field%22-tf3181355.html#a8828462
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com
16, 2006 5:30 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Interesting Question] How to implement Indexes Grouping?
Consider the following interesting situation,
A library has around 100K book, and want to be indexed by Lucene, this
seems to be straight forward, but
The target is:
0. You can search
an index
without iterating?
-Original Message-
From: howard chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:30 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Interesting Question] How to implement Indexes Grouping?
Consider the following interesting situation,
A library h
On 12/16/06, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't tell until you get some numbers. So try it. I'm indexing 4,600
books in about 45 minutes on a laptop as part of my current project. So it
shouldn't be much of a problem to index, say, 10,000 books as a starter set.
This will give yo
You can't tell until you get some numbers. So try it. I'm indexing 4,600
books in about 45 minutes on a laptop as part of my current project. So it
shouldn't be much of a problem to index, say, 10,000 books as a starter set.
This will give you some idea of the size of your index(es), and some idea
On 12/16/06, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd start with just one big index and test . My point is that you can't
speculate. The first question you have to answer is "is searching the whole
index fast enough given my architecture?" and we can't answer that. Nor can
you until you try.
I'd start with just one big index and test . My point is that you can't
speculate. The first question you have to answer is "is searching the whole
index fast enough given my architecture?" and we can't answer that. Nor can
you until you try...
We especially can't speculate since you've provi
Consider the following interesting situation,
A library has around 100K book, and want to be indexed by Lucene, this
seems to be straight forward, but
The target is:
0. You can search all books in the whole library [easy, just index it]
1. users in this system can own a numbers of books in
tiple fields (equally) named 'paragraph'.
Now I want to make a "Field Grouping" query (described in: http://
lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.html )
"paragraph:( word1 AND word2 )"
retrieving only documents where the terms word1,word2 appear in the
SAME
: > You could do this with the current query parser by putting large
: > position increment gaps between paragraphs that is guaranteed to be
: > larger than the largest paragraph. Then you could use a sloppy phrase
: > query
: > "word1 word2"~1 for instance.
: Unfortunatelly this only makes s
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 8/8/06, Laurent Hoss wrote:
Suppose having an Index containing Lucene documents, having multiple
fields (equally) named 'paragraph'.
Now I want to make a "Field Grouping" query (described in:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.html )
: That would also score documents higher the closer together the words
: appeared (which may or may not be desirable).
if it's not desirable, it could be "fixed" by overriding the sloppyFreq
method of your Similarity.
-Hoss
-
On 8/8/06, Laurent Hoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suppose having an Index containing Lucene documents, having multiple
fields (equally) named 'paragraph'.
Now I want to make a "Field Grouping" query (described in:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.
Hi
Suppose having an Index containing Lucene documents, having multiple
fields (equally) named 'paragraph'.
Now I want to make a "Field Grouping" query (described in:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/queryparsersyntax.html )
"paragraph:( word1 AND word2 )"
r
TED]> wrote on 25/07/2006
> 03:38:51:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Can anybody help me out on this ..?
> >
> > I have to search for a particular value over multiple fields and need
to
> > know if grouping is allowed over multiple fields
> >
> > eg.
>
q);
--> field:some +field:text +(AUTHOR_NAME:krish EMPLOYEE_NAME:krish)
- Doron
"Krishnendra Nandi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/07/2006
03:38:51:
> Hi All,
>
> Can anybody help me out on this ..?
>
> I have to search for a particular value over multiple
Krishnendra Nandi wrote:
Can anybody help me out on this ..?
I have to search for a particular value over multiple fields and need to
know if grouping is allowed over multiple fields
eg.
AND ( AUTHOR_NAME:krish OR EMPLOYEE_NAME:krish )
Introducing paranthesis "(" is
Hi All,
Can anybody help me out on this ..?
I have to search for a particular value over multiple fields and need to
know if grouping is allowed over multiple fields
eg.
AND ( AUTHOR_NAME:krish OR EMPLOYEE_NAME:krish )
Introducing paranthesis "(" is giving me lexical erro
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
