RE: MultiFieldQueryParser on integer and string (8.6.0)

2020-11-24 Thread Karthick Sundaram
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

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser on integer and string (8.6.0)

2020-11-24 Thread Nicolás Lichtmaier
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 api and lu

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser on integer and string (8.6.0)

2020-10-09 Thread Stephane Passignat
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: MultiField

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-09 Thread Elmer
Thank you Trejkaz! Inspired by your solution I've created the attached extension to the MFQP, a little different than you proposed. In getFieldQuery, if a (stop)word is removed by an analyzer for some field, it will return null, so that term is then ignored (only if using AND as default operator).

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Trejkaz
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

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Ian Lea
I'm sure you are right and I'm wrong - sorry for the waste of space. However I still think you should build it all up in code. -- Ian. On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Elmer wrote: >> Using MFQP with AND >> everywhere you'll never get a match if some fields don't contain all >> of the search te

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Elmer
> Using MFQP with AND > everywhere you'll never get a match if some fields don't contain all > of the search terms" I'm sorry to say, but that's not true I guess, look how the query parser parses the following query: 'information retrieval' --parsed-to--> +(title:inform description:inform authors.

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Ian Lea
Then surely the stop word issue is a red herring. Using MFQP with AND everywhere you'll never get a match if some fields don't contain all of the search terms. Even if Erick's exact answer won't apply, I suspect that building up a composite boolean query is the way to go. -- Ian. On Wed, Jun 8

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Elmer
Sorry, I made a mistake here: > Unfortunately, the solution that Erick gave won't do the trick > > > bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD)) > > > bq.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD)) > This still won't match documents where both 'the' and 'project' appear > in DIFFERENT

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Elmer
Thank you, I already use the PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper (by Hibernate Search) ;) And that's where the problem comes in: different fields using different analyzers (some with, some without a stopfilter). For each term (tokenized by MFQP itself?), it applies the given analyzer on each field. If the ana

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Erick Erickson
You're right, that's a better place to start Erick On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Ian Lea wrote: > 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. > > > -- > I

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Ian Lea
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. -- Ian. On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Could you just construct a BooleanQuery with the > term

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Erick Erickson
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.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD)) etc...? If your QueryParser was created with a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper I think you mig

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter

2011-06-08 Thread Ian Lea
I guess the base problem is that MFQP only accepts one analyzer. Presumably you are using different analyzers for your title and desc fields, and it might do what you wanted if you could pass in a list of analyzers along with a list of fields. Sounds like something that might not be too hard to co

RE: MultiFieldQueryParser

2010-10-17 Thread Lev Bronshtein
> > 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

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser

2010-10-17 Thread Simon Willnauer
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 > > Looked at the javadoc, an

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser

2010-10-16 Thread Itamar Syn-Hershko
Perhaps you met this issue which I have already reported? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2518 Itamar. On 14/10/2010 3:40 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "run a query against multiple fields". But would creating your own BooleanQuery where each claus

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser

2010-10-13 Thread Erick Erickson
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "run a query against multiple fields". But would creating your own BooleanQuery 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 O

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - using a different analyzer per field...

2009-05-04 Thread theDude_2
Hey guys: original poster here, and I found a solution! I created a wrapper that could accept multiple analyzers and then combined them into a search: here is the code. --wrapper class- public class PositionalPorterStopAnalyzer extends Analyzer { private Set stopWords;

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - using a different analyzer per field...

2009-05-01 Thread Erick Erickson
//www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -Original Message- > > From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:42 PM > > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: MultiFieldQueryParser

RE: MultiFieldQueryParser - using a different analyzer per field...

2009-05-01 Thread Uwe Schindler
.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:42 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - us

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - using a different analyzer per field...

2009-05-01 Thread Erick Erickson
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 > > Im trying to crea

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - BooleanClause.Occur

2008-03-03 Thread JensBurkhardt
Hey, Thanks a lot! Everything works pretty well :-) . Greetings Jens Donna L Gresh wrote: > > Paul- > Thanks (that was one of my ulterior motives for answering the question; I > figured if there was something inefficient or unnecessary about my > approach, I'd hear about it :) ) > > Donna

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - BooleanClause.Occur

2008-02-29 Thread Donna L Gresh
Paul- Thanks (that was one of my ulterior motives for answering the question; I figured if there was something inefficient or unnecessary about my approach, I'd hear about it :) ) Donna Gresh Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/29/2008 01:42:57 PM: > Op Friday 29 February 2008 18:04:

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - BooleanClause.Occur

2008-02-29 Thread Paul Elschot
Op Friday 29 February 2008 18:04:47 schreef Donna L Gresh: > I believe something like the following will do what you want: > > QueryParser parserTitle = new QueryParser("title", analyzer); > QueryParser parserAuthor = new QueryParser("author", analyzer); > > BooleanQuery overallquery = new BooleanQ

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser - BooleanClause.Occur

2008-02-29 Thread Donna L Gresh
I believe something like the following will do what you want: QueryParser parserTitle = new QueryParser("title", analyzer); QueryParser parserAuthor = new QueryParser("author", analyzer); BooleanQuery overallquery = new BooleanQuery(); BolleanQuery firstQuery = new BooleanQuery(); Query q1= pars

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser question

2008-02-08 Thread Chris Hostetter
: Subject: MultiFieldQueryParser question : Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:53:37 - : Message-ID: : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack Thread Hijacking on Mailing Lists When starting a new discussion on a mailing list, please

RE: MultiFieldQueryParser question

2008-02-08 Thread Mitchell, Erica
Solved it, for those who were wondering where I went wrong I've built up an ArrayList while adding my attributes to a lucence doc and updated my multiquerySearchParser to contain all these attribute names as follows Object[] attributeNamesArray = (Object[]) attrList.toArray(); String[

RE: MultiFieldQueryParser doesn't properly filter out documents when the query string specifies to exclude certain terms

2006-12-20 Thread Scott Sellman
cts later on in my code. -Original Message- From: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:06 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: MultiFieldQueryParser doesn't properly filter out documents when the query string specifies to exclude cert

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser doesn't properly filter out documents when the query string specifies to exclude certain terms

2006-12-20 Thread Erick Erickson
My first question is how many documents would you be deleting on a pass for option 2? If it's 10 documents out of 10,000, I'd consider just deleting them and re-adding (see IndexModifier). Personally, if posible, I prefer your first option, building a completely new index and switching between th

RE: MultiFieldQueryParser doesn't properly filter out documents when the query string specifies to exclude certain terms

2006-12-20 Thread Adam Fleming
Hello Gentlemen (+Ladies?), I'm integrating Lucene into a Spring web-app, and have found a plethora of great web + print resources to make the integration quick and seamless. One thing that I have been hard-pressed to find is a good solution for rebuilding the index on a regular basis. I'm

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser doesn't properly filter out documents when the query string specifies to exclude certain terms

2006-12-19 Thread Daniel Naber
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:05, Scott Sellman wrote: >                         new > BooleanClause.Occur[]{BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD, > BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD} Why do you explicitly specify these operators? > q.add(keywordQuery, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST); //true, false); You seem to wra

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser vs concatenated field

2006-10-03 Thread Chris Hostetter
: Well, as always, it depends ... My first thought is that I'd index things : in separate fields as it gives you more options. For instance, let's say : that you have name and phone fields and decide that the name field is more : important than the phone number. Your options for boosting "anything

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser vs concatenated field

2006-10-03 Thread Erick Erickson
Well, as always, it depends ... My first thought is that I'd index things in separate fields as it gives you more options. For instance, let's say that you have name and phone fields and decide that the name field is more important than the phone number. Your options for boosting "anything in the

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser Search On C++ problem

2006-06-16 Thread Chris Lamprecht
It's the Analyzer you're passing into the QueryParser. StandardAnalyzer turns "C++" into "c". You can change the .jj grammar to fix this. (same for "C#") On 6/14/06, Joe Amstadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm trying to do a search on ( Java PHP C++ ) with lucene 1.9. I am using a MultiFieldQu

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser Problems about how to give the fields weight

2005-05-15 Thread luqun lou
How to boost it at indexing time? From: Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: MultiFieldQueryParser Problems about how to give the fields weight Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT) If you think c

Re: MultiFieldQueryParser Problems about how to give the fields weight

2005-05-11 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
If you think content field is more important, you could boost it at indexing time. If you want to boost at search time, and you are using QueryParser, you could just use the term^float syntax. I think what you have down there is ok, too, but I suppose you'd need an if/else so you boost only the c