Sorry to suggest that it was a Lucene bug. It is rare we encounter
Lucene bugs - a testament to your code quality. Much appreciate!
On 2014/07/16, 12:33 PM, Jamie wrote:
Uwe
Thank you.
I think your earlier hint regarding precision steps solved it. I
noticed that new Long was created with a
Uwe
Thank you.
I think your earlier hint regarding precision steps solved it. I
noticed that new Long was created with a precision step of 4, but my
range query was creating precision step of 8.
return NumericRangeQuery.newLongRange(field.getIndexField(), 8,
Long.parseLong(query.getLowerTe
Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie [mailto:ja...@mailarchiva.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:21 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0 ran
://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie [mailto:ja...@mailarchiva.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:09 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0 range query broken?
>
> Here it is
>
> return Num
Why do you use QueryWrapperFilter instead of using NumericRangeFilter directly?
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie [mailto:ja...@mailarchiva.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:15
Uwe
The range query works with lindexes created by 3.8.1, but not 4.0.0. To
me, this indicates that Lucene 4.0.0 is not indexing these longs
correctly, or something of the sort. Do you have any ideas on where to
look?
Jamie
On 2014/07/16, 12:15 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Sorry, no you canno
rg
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0 range query broken?
>
> Uwe
>
> is there anyway we can downgrade to 3.8.1 while being able to read indexes
> created from 4.0.0?
>
> On 2014/07/16, 11:45 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > If you index as a long field, you have to
Uwe
is there anyway we can downgrade to 3.8.1 while being able to read
indexes created from 4.0.0?
On 2014/07/16, 11:45 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
If you index as a long field, you have to use NumericRangeQuery to query. A
simple TermRangeQuery as created by QueryParser does not work, because
Here it is
return NumericRangeQuery.newLongRange(field.getIndexField(), 8,
Long.parseLong(query.getLowerTerm().utf8ToString()),
Long.parseLong(query.getUpperTerm().utf8ToString()),
query.includesLower(), query.includesUpper());
Range query appears broken in Lucene 4.0.0.
On
Uwe
Thanks for the suggestion.
When I inspect the query in Eclipse, I can clearly see that a
NumericRangeQuery is constructed.
Why would this query work in an older version of Lucene but not 4.0.0.?
Jamie
On 2014/07/16, 11:45 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
If you index as a long field, you have
> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie [mailto:ja...@mailarchiva.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:43 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0 range query broken?
>
> All
>
> As a further to the below.
>
> We are able to search by range q
All
As a further to the below.
We are able to search by range query when the indexes are created by
3.8.1. When the date field is indexed by 4.0.0, search with date range
query doesn't work.
Here's how we index the date field.
String date = DateUtil.convertDatetoString((Date)
value,DateUt
Hi
This query does not work either:
QueryWrapperFilter(+archivedate:[20140708 TO 20140731] +cat:email)
Thus, in our mind, Lucene 4.0.0 range query is broken. We tried to
downgrade to v3.8.1, but it wont read indexes created by 4.0.0.
Any recommendations on how to get out of this bin
yes thank you
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:59:13 -0400
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0
> From: brendan.grain...@gmail.com
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> According to:
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_0_0/core/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexReader.html#leaves()it
> is
Lucene 4.0.0??
>
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:41:05 -0400
> > Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0
> > From: brendan.grain...@gmail.com
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Hi Mary,
> >
> > I've been out of the loop with Lucene and java for a bit so this is
I have a problem with AtomicReader reader =
indexReader.leaves().get(0).reader(); it is topical in Lucene 4.0.0??
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:41:05 -0400
> Subject: Re: lucene 4.0.0
> From: brendan.grain...@gmail.com
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> Hi Mary,
>
&
I'll try to see how inculre with my code, thank you very much.
Hi Mary,
I've been out of the loop with Lucene and java for a bit so this is might
not be too correct, but here is an example of how it might be accomplished
(also you can see it in this gist: https://gist.github.com/rainkinz/5645139).
The output looks like this:
** Also note I'm using Lucene 4.3
Use TermsEnum to iterate through all terms, and DocsAndPositionsEnum
to visit all docs containing each term, and its frequency and all
positions of each term occurrence within the document.
Also, try to upgrade from 4.0.0 to the latest (4.3.0) ...
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
Hi Vitaly,
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM, wrote:
> I try to use or Terms tfvector = reader.getTermVector(docId, "contents");
> or Fields fields = reader.getTermVectors(docId);
> but I get null from these calls.
> What is wrong?
These methods will always return null unless you turn term vect
java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 4.0.0 - find term position.
terms = fileds.terms(...);
termsEnum = terms.iterator(null);
termsEnum.seekExat(...);
docsAndPositionsEnum docsPosEnum = termsEnum.docsAndPositions(...);
You can get the information in "docsPosEnum".
On Thu, De
terms = fileds.terms(...);
termsEnum = terms.iterator(null);
termsEnum.seekExat(...);
docsAndPositionsEnum docsPosEnum = termsEnum.docsAndPositions(...);
You can get the information in "docsPosEnum".
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:28 AM, wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am new with Lucene.
> I try to understand
22 matches
Mail list logo
