s)
Create a query matching any of the specified 1D values.
Regards,
Karthick
-Original Message-
From: Nicolás Lichtmaier [mailto:nicol...@wolfram.com.INVALID]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:25 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org; Stephane Passignat
Subject: Re: MultiFieldQuery
I think you will need to subclass MultiFieldQueryParser so that the
proper Query is created when the field is the numeric one. Maybe
overriding createFieldQuery().
El 8/10/20 a las 11:48, Stephane Passignat escribió:
Hi,
I'm trying to index numeric, and then to query them using java ap
Hi,
it seems I do not raise a lot of interest here... anyway I try again
with a simpler question.
Is MultiFieldQueryParser usable in 8.6.0 ?
thanks
Message initial
De: Stephane Passignat
Répondre à: java-user@lucene.apache.org
À: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Objet
"21")));
doc.add(new DoublePoint("DoublePoint", new Double(37.7)));
doc.add(new StringField("Date", "20200615",
Field.Store.YES));
writer.addDocument(doc);
writer.commit();
}
}
private void query(Directory index, QueryPars
Hi,-
i am trying to understand what this api does and it seems
it decomposes the input string by spaces and OR's them and then
depending on occur field setting the whole OR'ed expression is either
under "+" (i.e,must) or just OR'ed again.
Such as:
input string abc def
occur values are : m
It seems in my query string i cant see $ when print it out from
MultiFieldQueryParser but the search string has $ in it and it finds hits.
On the other hand, Termquery based BooleanQuery keeps $ and no hits.
i use $ for starts with effect.
Best regards
Hi Team,
I have a doubt on parsing a query using
MultiFieldQueryParser over StandardAnalyzer.
searchWord: abc.def_...@global-international.com
while performing a search using the code,
Analyzer analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer(Version.LUCENE_40, new
> StringRea
Hello, can someone review my patch?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7917
--
Regards, Yegor Dovganich
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h..
27;ve obviously seen (and fixed!) the issue already,
>> > but for the record: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4878
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@gmail.com]
>> &
ail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:28 AM
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Assert / NPE using MultiFieldQueryParser
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > this is in-fact a bug in the MultiFieldQueryParser, can you open a
> ticket for this please i
r
> the record: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4878
>
> Adam
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:28 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Assert / NPE using Mult
-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Assert / NPE using MultiFieldQueryParser
Hey,
this is in-fact a bug in the MultiFieldQueryParser, can you open a ticket for
this please in our bugtracker?
MultifieldQueryParser should override getRegexpQuery but it doesn't
simon
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM,
Hey,
this is in-fact a bug in the MultiFieldQueryParser, can you open a
ticket for this please in our bugtracker?
MultifieldQueryParser should override getRegexpQuery but it doesn't
simon
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Adam Rauch wrote:
> I'm using MultiFieldQueryParser to
I'm using MultiFieldQueryParser to parse search queries. I find that
certain query strings (e.g., "/study/" without the quotes) cause
MultiFieldQueryParser.parse() to throw an AssertionError, if asserts are
enabled. In production, parse() returns a Query, but it seems to be
corru
Highly unlikely unless your subclass was slow for some reason.
--
Ian.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Paul Taylor wrote:
> If I happen to subclass MultiFieldQueryParser unneccessarily (thought need
> more than one default search but don't after all) would it have any impact
>
If I happen to subclass MultiFieldQueryParser unneccessarily (thought
need more than one default search but don't after all) would it have
any impact on performance ?
thanks Paul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java
che.lucene.queryParser.MultiFieldQueryParser;
import org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException;
import org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanClause;
import org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanClause.Occur;
import org.apache.lucene.search.Query;
import org.apache.lucene.util.Version;
/**
* @author Elmer van Chastelet
*
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Elmer wrote:
> the parsed query becomes:
>
> '+(title:the) +(title:project desc:project)'.
>
> So, the problem is that docs that have the term 'the' only appearing in
> their desc field are excluded from the results.
Subclass MFQP and override getFieldQuery.
If th
t; Except that I think he has loads of other fields and wants to keep it
>> >> > simple.
>> >> >
>> >> > But how about passing a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper instance as the
>> >> > analyzer to MFQP? Worth a try.
>> >> >
>> >
; > analyzer to MFQP? Worth a try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Ian.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Erick Erickson
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Could you just constr
t; > wrote:
>> > > Could you just construct a BooleanQuery with the
>> > > terms against different fields instead of using MFQP?
>> > > e.g.
>> > >
>> > > bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>> > > b
38 PM, Erick Erickson
> > wrote:
> > > Could you just construct a BooleanQuery with the
> > > terms against different fields instead of using MFQP?
> > > e.g.
> > >
> > > bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
> > > bq
FieldAnalyzerWrapper I think you might get what you
> > want
> >
> > Note, bad pseudo code there...
> >
> > Best
> > Erick
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a use case in whi
code there...
>>
>> Best
>> Erick
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
>>> some fields that use and some fields that don't use a stopfilter. The
you might get what you
> want
>
> Note, bad pseudo code there...
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
>> some fields that use and som
rWrapper I think you might get what you
want
Note, bad pseudo code there...
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
> some fields that use and some fields that don't use a stopfilte
code, although there may be complications and
catches that I haven't thought of.
You can pass an analyzer to the parse() methods therefore could
perhaps have something like
BooleanQuery bq = new BooleanQuery();
MultiFieldQueryParser mfqp = new ...(...);
Query q1 = mfqp.parse(... title-type-f
Hi,
I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
some fields that use and some fields that don't use a stopfilter. The
default operator of the MFQP is set to AND.
For example, if the search query is 'the project' (with 'the' included
in the stopli
Ranjit,
The problem is definitely the analyzer you are passing to QueryParser or
MultiFieldQueryParser, and not the parser itself.
The following tests succeed using KeywordAnalyzer, which is a pass-through
analyzer (the output is the same as the input):
public void testSharpQP() throws
.net I
need to use MultiFieldQueryParser to get correct result(document). Then Parser
stripping off # but do not dot(.) so query became c AND .net
Also, I have made changes for c#.net, vb.net, .net all these work properly with
MultiFieldQueryParser except c#
Thanks & Regards,
Ranjit K
hope to sent some detail about it.
2011-04-26
haichengyl
发件人： Ranjit Kumar
发送时间： 2011-04-26 21:55:04
收件人： java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org; java-user@lucene.apache.org
抄送：
主题： lucene 3.0.3 | QueryParser | MultiFieldQueryParser
Hi,
I have created my own custom analyzer and uses
help to give some detail info
2011-04-26
haichengyl
发件人： Ranjit Kumar
发送时间： 2011-04-26 21:55:04
收件人： java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org; java-user@lucene.apache.org
抄送：
主题： lucene 3.0.3 | QueryParser | MultiFieldQueryParser
Hi,
I have created my own custom analyzer and uses jFlex
(<_TERM_CHAR>)* >
Are you sure that your custom JFlex Analyzer is not being given 'C#' and then
stripping off the '#'?
You could work around this issue by pre-processing your query (and your
documents) to replace C# with csharp or something like it that would not be
MultiFieldQueryParser but it also do the same.
Any help or suggestion will be appreciated!!!
Thanks & Regards,
Ranjit Kumar
===
Private, Confidential and Privileged. This e-mail and any files
FuzzyQuery(...),. ...);
>etc
>
>See BooleanClause.Occur for options on MUST, SHOULD etc.
>
>
>--
>Ian.
>
>On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Deepak Konidena
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using MultiFieldQueryParser with a custom analyzer for parsing
>>searc
>
> I am using MultiFieldQueryParser with a custom analyzer for parsing search
> text.
>
> Now, when I say
>
> MultiFieldQueryParser qp = new MultiFieldQueryParser(Version, new String[]
> {"field1", "field2", "field3"}, customAnalyzer);
>
Hi,
I am using MultiFieldQueryParser with a custom analyzer for parsing search text.
Now, when I say
MultiFieldQueryParser qp = new MultiFieldQueryParser(Version, new String[]
{"field1", "field2", "field3"}, customAnalyzer);
qp.setDefaultOperator(QueryPars
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ian Lea [via Lucene] <
ml-node+2693597-476158808-376...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> if you go the MultiFieldQueryParser route you are going to need some
> arrays.
>
Which other route can I take to do a all field search ?
(Keeping in mind that I don
if you go the MultiFieldQueryParser route you are going to need some
arrays. You specifically asked if you needed an array of
BooleanClause.Occur and the answer to that specific question is still
no.
I can't tell you any more on this than you can get from reading the javadocs.
--
Ian.
O
FieldQueryParser.parse(Version.LUCENE_CURRENT, s, fields, flags, new
StandardAnalyzer(Version.LUCENE_CURRENT, Collections.emptySet()));
:(
--
Regards
Shrinath.M
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-do-an-all-field-search-without-using-a-catchall-field-or-Mult
0.3...
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_3/api/all/org/apache/lucene/queryParser/MultiFieldQueryParser.html
>
> <http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_3/api/all/org/apache/lucene/queryParser/MultiFieldQueryParser.html>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Shrinath.M
>
>
> --
Parser/MultiFieldQueryParser.html>
--
Regards
Shrinath.M
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-do-an-all-field-search-without-using-a-catchall-field-or-MultiFieldQueryParser-tp2681163p2693226.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.html>Look
> at the parse method.
>
> --
> Regards
> Shrinath.M
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-do-an-all-field-search-without-using-a-catch
rch-without-using-a-catchall-field-or-MultiFieldQueryParser-tp2681163p2693112.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> I'd have to create a similarly sized array of Boolean.Occur too, isn't it?
What for?
> 1. Is that how SIREn implements it?
No idea.
> 2. Is that optimal solution if I'm going to have an index of a billion docs
> with varying number of fields?
Probably not. I always use a catchall field. I
ucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-do-an-all-field-search-without-using-a-catchall-field-or-MultiFieldQueryParser-tp2681163p2685072.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
IndexReader.getFieldNames()?
public abstract Collection
getFieldNames(IndexReader.FieldOption fldOption)
Use that to get indexed fields and pass that list to MultiFieldQueryParser.
--
Ian.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, shrinath.m wrote:
> Catchall field has its own disadvantages
Catchall field has its own disadvantages of increasing index size.
MultiFieldQueryParser has to know the field names before hand.
How do I do a multi field search
- without knowing fields in the index
- without having a CatchAll field
PS : I went through the Lucene in Action book, and in
Hi,
MultiFieldQueryParser($Revision: 965585) says that when you pass something
like (title=>5 body=>10) you can get
+(title:term1^5.0 body:term1^10.0) +(title:term2^5.0 body:term2^10.0),
whereas what I have received is the following (with Version.LUCENE_40):
+(title:term1 title:term
>
> Why don't you use the parse method without the flags?
>
> public static Query parse(Version matchVersion, String[] queries,
> String[] fields,
> Analyzer analyzer) throws ParseException
>
Thank you for the suggestion Simon.
However the point is that I want to apply one query as opposed to
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Lev Bronshtein
wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I have an isue when using MultiFieldQueryParser, I would like to use one
> query against a number of fields however I get an
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: queries.length != fields.length
>
&g
uery where each clause was the parsed result
against
a specific field work?
If this is irrelevant, could you give a couple of examples of what you're
looking to
accomplish?
Best
Erick
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Lev Bronshtein
wrote:
Hi Group,
I have an isue when using MultiFieldQueryPar
omplish?
Best
Erick
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Lev Bronshtein
wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I have an isue when using MultiFieldQueryParser, I would like to use one
> query against a number of fields however I get an
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: queries.length != fields
Hi Group,
I have an isue when using MultiFieldQueryParser, I would like to use one query
against a number of fields however I get an
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: queries.length != fields.length
Looked at the javadoc, and it looks like the only way to run one query against
multiple
: If I am just searching for a term, "ipod" in this case, how would be coord
: computed? Would in this case coord(q,d) matter at all? (I understand that
: not)
in theory your SImilarity coord() function would be called to find out
what hte coord value for "1 of 1" should be ... but in reallity T
xQuery with the tie braker = 1
> than
> : to use a MultiFieldQueryParser with and OR to build the boolean queries?
>
> strictly speaking even with tie breaker of 1, a DisjuctionMaxQuery differs
> from a BooleanQuery in the details of how the score is calculated when a
> doc
: If I want to search let's say "ipod" in three different fields (device,
: sound,technology)
: Would be the same to use a DisjunctionMaxQuery with the tie braker = 1 than
: to use a MultiFieldQueryParser with and OR to build the boolean queries?
strictly speaking even with tie
Hey there,
If I want to search let's say "ipod" in three different fields (device,
sound,technology)
Would be the same to use a DisjunctionMaxQuery with the tie braker = 1 than
to use a MultiFieldQueryParser with and OR to build the boolean queries?
As far as I unders
Hi,
I'm using MultiFieldQueryParser to search over different fields of documents
in the
index. Whenever I get a hit for a query, is it possible to know in which
field the query
match occurred? And is it possible to retrieve the field(s) for each hit?
To make things clearer, suppose I have
Simon Willnauer wrote:
This would not make much of a difference. I would guess that you have
one additional "wrapping" boolean query if you use
MultiFieldQueryParser. For query "foo AND bar" the MFQueryParser
creates +(fname:foo) +(fname:bar) and QueryParser would create
+fna
In MultiFieldQueryParser, you can mention different fields of the document
which can
be searched for
E.g. in contents of the document, if you index different fields such as URL,
BOLD, ITALIC, you can search over all of them.
Additionally, there is provision to boost a field over the other as well
This would not make much of a difference. I would guess that you have
one additional "wrapping" boolean query if you use
MultiFieldQueryParser. For query "foo AND bar" the MFQueryParser
creates +(fname:foo) +(fname:bar) and QueryParser would create
+fname:foo +fname:bar so in
I'd guess there wouldn't be any difference, but haven't tried it. Try
it out and see what query.toString() says in each case.
--
Ian.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Paul Taylor wrote:
> Is there any difference between using QueryParser and MultiFieldQueryParser
> whe
Is there any difference between using QueryParser and
MultiFieldQueryParser when have single default search field ?
Depending on how many default search fields on an searching an index I
select which of the two QueryParsers to use, but does it mater if I just
use MultiFIeldQueryParser all the
We have code (using Lucene 2.4.1) that will build a query that looks like:
fielda:"ruz an"~2 OR fieldb:"ruz an"~2 OR fieldc:"ruz an"~2
When passed to a MultiFieldQueryParser and parsed it comes back looking
like:
fielda:"ruz an"~2 fieldb:"ru
ddAnalyzer("Field_2", new
PositionalPorterStopAnalyzer());
mfqp = new MultiFieldQueryParser(
fields,
pfawBoth,
boosts);
---
ng that searches both fields
> with different analyzers. For searching more than one field at once, he can
> use MultiFieldQueryParser, but not if the analyzer for both fields is
> different (because the query string itself is also analyzed, but the two
> different analyzers will pr
Hi Erick,
this is not what he wants to do, I think.
He wants both things at once: One query string that searches both fields
with different analyzers. For searching more than one field at once, he can
use MultiFieldQueryParser, but not if the analyzer for both fields is
different (because the
This looks like a job for PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper, no
MultiFieldQueryparser required
Best
Erick
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:33 PM, theDude_2 wrote:
>
> Hello fellow Lucene developers!
>
> I have a bit of a question - and I can't find the answer in my lucene
> book.
t I want a pure text match only, and for the other I
want to use the stemming concept by using a custom made analyzer.
Is there a way to do this?
--This is what I am thinking (conceptually)--
MultiFieldQueryParser mfqp1 = new MultiFieldQueryParser(field1, new
StandardAna
Hi,
Can I boost different fields in MultiFieldQueryParser with different
factors? Also, what is the maximum boost factor value I can assign to a
field?
Thanks a ton! Ed
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Boost-factor-in-MultiFieldQueryParser-tp22031092p22031092.html
Sent
'd want MUST between clauses (in which case MultiFieldQueryParser
> seems unnecesary). That is, if your form is somethinng like
> title:
> description:
> category:
>
> If you have them enter just a single term, that is your form looks
> something like
> word:
> categor
which case MultiFieldQueryParser
seems unnecesary). That is, if your form is somethinng like
title:
description:
category:
If you have them enter just a single term, that is your form looks
something like
word:
category:
and want to form a query like
(title:term OR description:term OR etc:term) AND category
that are in
the given category and which match a part of the query must be returned.
So I tried to use a MultiFieldQueryParser with SHOULD clauses on the
title, description, etc and a MUST clause on the category field. It
works pretty well but the problem is that _all_ the documents in the
search
g all that, try peeling back your code. That is, use
a very simple analyzer first on a single field then move up
to MultiFieldQueryParser. Usually whenever I do this I
wind up finding something silly
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Michael Nguyen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
fields = new string[] { "name", "keyword", "shortDescription" };
string strSearchTerm = "hello world";
PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper wrapper = new PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper(new
StandardAnalyzer());
wrapper.AddAnalyzer("keyword", new KeywordAnalyzer())
yzer("nomeMunicipio", new
> > SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("nomeBairro", new
> > SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("logradouro", new
> > SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("textoComplementar",
>
()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("nomeMunicipio", new
> SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("nomeBairro", new
> SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("logradouro", new
> SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("textoComplementar",
> new SimpleB
yzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("nomeMunicipio", new
SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("nomeBairro", new
SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("logradouro", new
SimpleBrazilianAnalyzer()); analyzer.addAnalyzer("textoComplementar",
new SimpleBr
the stopword during index time you will never
find any document matching your query. (this is expected behaviour)
you can possibly use word1 OR stopword OR word2 (depends on what you want in
the result)
If you can clarify more about what you want in the result we can discuss on
what can be done.
t you want in the result we can discuss on
> what can be done.
I wanted MultiFieldQueryParser to ignore any stopword the user may type
in. In that particular case I'd like the result to be word1 AND word2. I
thought that was what would happen because I pass the Analyzer to
MultiFieldQuer
TECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I used an Analyzer which removes stopwords when indexing, then I wanted
> to do an AND search using MultiFieldQueryParser. So I did this:
>word1 AND stopword AND word2
> I thought the stopword would be ignored by the searcher (I use the same
>
Hello,
I used an Analyzer which removes stopwords when indexing, then I wanted
to do an AND search using MultiFieldQueryParser. So I did this:
word1 AND stopword AND word2
I thought the stopword would be ignored by the searcher (I use the same
Analyzer to index and search). But instead, I
gt;> -Grant
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Anshul jain wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here is what I'm trying to do:
> >>>>
> >>>> say a lucene document:
> >>>> name: abc ^10
> &g
gt; Now what I want is that a text can be associated with more than one
>>>> field.
>>>> i.e.
>>>>
>>>> (field1,field2,field3):value
>>>> name,(default_field),title: abc^10
>>>> organization,(default_field),institute: xyz^3
>
nd searching
mechanism for lucene, so that I can start working on it.
The solution given by the java-users won't work for me as I do not
want to add all the contents of the document in a single field and
then search for that field, as this would increase the index size
and
I've to inde
eling that this might work.
-Original Message-
From: Umesh Prasad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 September 2008 13:58
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Multi Field search without Multifieldqueryparser
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTE
ain the indexing and searching
>> mechanism for lucene, so that I can start working on it.
>>
>> The solution given by the java-users won't work for me as I do not
>> want to add all the contents of the document in a single field and
>> then search for that field
ndexing and searching
> mechanism for lucene, so that I can start working on it.
>
> The solution given by the java-users won't work for me as I do not
> want to add all the contents of the document in a single field and
> then search for that field, as this would increase the
le to do so in lucene without changing the source?
>> If no then can anyone please explain the indexing and searching
>> mechanism for lucene, so that I can start working on it.
>>
>> The solution given by the java-users won't work for me as I do not
>> want t
ent in a single field and
then search for that field, as this would increase the index size and
I've to index more than 10 million documents. Also
multifieldqueryparser will make it query execution inefficient, as
there will be thousands of fields.
If I start storing just a single field as: (def
x27;ve to index more than 10 million documents. Also
multifieldqueryparser will make it query execution inefficient, as
there will be thousands of fields.
If I start storing just a single field as: (default_field): "name abc
organization xyz", then it is possible that some other documen
; > You will pay a penalty here, of bigger index and slower indexing.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anshul jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 21 September 2008 20:27
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Multi Field search without
> So you pass "searchable-mash: George bush and president" to query parser.
>
> You will pay a penalty here, of bigger index and slower indexing.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Anshul jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 September 2008 20:27
> To: java-u
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 September 2008 20:27
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Multi Field search without Multifieldqueryparser
Hi!
I've a lucene document structured like:
Field: Text
name: George Bush
Sex: Male
Occupation: President of USA
Now I can have two types of queries:
Stru
Hi!
I've a lucene document structured like:
Field: Text
name: George Bush
Sex: Male
Occupation: President of USA
Now I can have two types of queries:
Structured query:
name: George Bush AND Occupation: President
Unstructured Query:
George Bush AND President.
After parsing it will become, value:
Dear fellow Lucene/Java developers:
I have an index created from an XML file which I am trying to search using
the MultiFieldQueryParser. At present, I am using the QueryParser to
successfully return results that are highlighted. The code is listed here:
public List search(File indexDir
:
>> > > Hey everybody,
>> > >
>> > > I read that it's possible to generate a query like:
>> > >
>> > > (title:term1 OR author:term1) AND (title:term2 OR author:term2)
>> > >
>> > > and so on. I also read that Bo
elp me
> > > handle
> >
> > this
> >
> > > problem.
> > > But i have to admit that i totally don't understand how to use it.
> > > If someone can explain or has a link to an explanation, this would
> > > be terrific
> > >
&g
(title:term2 OR author:term2)
> >
> > and so on. I also read that BooleanClause.Occur should help me
> > handle
>
> this
>
> > problem.
> > But i have to admit that i totally don't understand how to use it.
> > If someone can explain or has a link to
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
