[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:59 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene query question
I'll take a quick stab at it. What analyzer are you using with the
query? In
the search page of Luke, near the upper right there's the "Analyzer t
Hi Erick,
I appreciate the help. I am using the "StandardAnalyzer" for both the
query and for indexing.
--Mike
On 5/10/06, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll take a quick stab at it. What analyzer are you using with the query? In
the search page of Luke, near the upper right ther
I'll take a quick stab at it. What analyzer are you using with the query? In
the search page of Luke, near the upper right there's the "Analyzer to use
for query parsing:" box. You might try the WhitespaceAnalyzer, since that
shouldn't do anything "interesting". Also, below the search box on the
s
Mr. Gospodnetic,
Thanks for the quick response. You make a good point about the field
being tokenized, and I initially had the e-mail field UN_TOKENIZED but
it did not change the result of the query (my example search was still
failing). Do you have any ideas on what could be causing that?
Th
Mike,
Do you really want to tokenize your emails? StandardAnalyzer may in fact
recognize email addresses and leave them as one token, but it would probably be
better practice to make that email field UN_TOKENIZED.
Most of the time when people have trouble finding a Document they _know_ is in
