workaround. I'm just trying to avoid going down the wrong path.
> Query.html#rewrite
So it sounds like I should attempt to write my own InverseWildcardQuery class
which overrides this method. Perhaps I can use WildcardQuery as an example?
WildcardQuery has changed parent classes over
> > you want what Lucene already does, but that's clearly not true
>
> Hmmm, let's pretend that "contents" field in my example wasn't analyzed at
> index
> time. The unstemmed form of terms will be indexed. But if I query with a
> stemmed
> form or use QueryParser with the SnowballAnalyzer, I'm
]" may appear any number of
times where PREFIX comes from the set { A, B, C, D, E, ... }.
This complexity is really a tangent of my question in order to avoid poor
performance from WildcardQuery.
- Original Message
From: Steven A Rowe
To: "java-user@lucene.apache.org
Hi Justin,
> > an example
>
> PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper analyzers =
> new PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper(new KeywordAnalyzer());
> // myfield defaults to KeywordAnalyzer
> analyzers.addAnalyzer("content", new SnowballAnalyzer(luceneVersion,
> "English"));
> // analyzers affects the indexed field valu
> Can you turn those prefixes into field names
No, the prefixes are not discrete. Multiple field values could start with the
same prefix.
Writing something like InverseWildcardQuery seems like the most appropriate
solution. My thought to have another Analyzer used on the field value at search
Hi Justin,
> Unfortunately the suffix requires a wildcard as well in our case. There
> are a limited number of prefixes though (10ish), so perhaps we could
> combine them all into one query. We'd still need some sort of
> InverseWildcardQuery implementation.
>
> > u
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 11:14:17 AM
Subject: RE: InverseWildcardQuery
Hi Justin,
> [...] "*:* AND -myfield:foo*".
>
> If my document contains "myfield:foobar" and "myfield:dog", the document
> would be thrown out because of the first field. I wan
Hi Justin,
> [...] "*:* AND -myfield:foo*".
>
> If my document contains "myfield:foobar" and "myfield:dog", the document
> would be thrown out because of the first field. I want to keep the
> document because the second field does not match.
I'm assuming that you mistakenly used the same field n
> indexing your terms in reverse
Unfortunately the suffix requires a wildcard as well in our case. There are a
limited number of prefixes though (10ish), so perhaps we could combine them all
into one query. We'd still need some sort of InverseWildcardQuery
implementation.
>
hetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lea [mailto:ian@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:33 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: InverseWildcardQuery
>
> > I think you're suggesting, for example, "*:* A
> I think you're suggesting, for example, "*:* AND -myfield:foo*".
Yes, I think that is equivalent.
> If my document contains "myfield:foobar" and "myfield:dog", the document would
> be thrown out because of the first field. I want to keep the document because
> the second field does not match.
: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 9:38:26 AM
Subject: Re: InverseWildcardQuery
I can't get my head round exactly what you want, but a standard lucene
technique is a BooleanQuery holding a MatchAllDocsQuery and a second
query, can be anything, having Occur.MUST_NOT. I gues
ustin wrote:
> Any hints on making something like an InverseWildcardQuery?
>
> We're trying to find all documents that have at least one field that doesn't
> match the wildcard query.
>
> Or is there a wa
Any hints on making something like an InverseWildcardQuery?
We're trying to find all documents that have at least one field that doesn't
match the wildcard query.
Or is there a way to inverse any partic
14 matches
Mail list logo
