Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-17 Thread Alan Burlison
On 17/09/2013 13:03, Michael McCandless wrote: I haven't fired up Luke for a while, but it is really useful in general ) Yes, It's been invaluable. But, this does sound confusing. It could be it's telling you all fields that are present in this segment, regardless of whether that one docume

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-17 Thread Michael McCandless
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alan Burlison wrote: > On 16/09/2013 19:04, Alan Burlison wrote: > >>> Is Luke showing you stored fields? If so, this makes no sense ... >>> Field.Store.NO (single or multiple calls) should have resulted in no >>> stored fields. >> >> >> It shows the field but sho

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-17 Thread Alan Burlison
On 16/09/2013 19:04, Alan Burlison wrote: Is Luke showing you stored fields? If so, this makes no sense ... Field.Store.NO (single or multiple calls) should have resulted in no stored fields. It shows the field but shows the content as I think perhaps what I'm seeing is an artefact of how

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Alan Burlison
> Is Luke showing you stored fields? If so, this makes no sense ... > Field.Store.NO (single or multiple calls) should have resulted in no > stored fields. It shows the field but shows the content as -- Alan Burlison -- - To

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Michael McCandless
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Alan Burlison wrote: > On 16 September 2013 12:40, Michael McCandless > wrote: > >> If you use Field.Store.NO for all fields for a given document then no >> field should have been stored. Can you boil this down to a small test >> case? > > repeated calls to > > d

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Alan Burlison
On 16 September 2013 12:40, Michael McCandless wrote: > If you use Field.Store.NO for all fields for a given document then no > field should have been stored. Can you boil this down to a small test > case? repeated calls to doc.add(new TextField("content", c, Field.Store.NO))) result in a sin

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Alan Burlison
On 16 September 2013 11:47, Ian Lea wrote: > Not exactly dumb, and I can't tell you exactly what is happening here, > but lucene stores some info at the index level rather than the field > level, and things can get confusing if you don't use the same Field > definition consistently for a field. >

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Michael McCandless
That is strange. If you use Field.Store.NO for all fields for a given document then no field should have been stored. Can you boil this down to a small test case? Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Alan Burlison wrote: > I'm creating multiple inst

Re: Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Ian Lea
Not exactly dumb, and I can't tell you exactly what is happening here, but lucene stores some info at the index level rather than the field level, and things can get confusing if you don't use the same Field definition consistently for a field. >From the javadocs for org.apache.lucene.document.Fie

Multiple field instances and Field.Store.NO

2013-09-16 Thread Alan Burlison
I'm creating multiple instances of a field, some with Field.Store.YES and some with Field.Store.NO, with Lucene 4.4. If Field.Store.YES is set then I see multiple instances of the field in the documents in the resulting index, if I use Field.Store.NO then I only see a single field. Is that expected