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..
Thx!
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2011 10:32
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: RE: negative wildcard query
>
> Pure negative queries do not work, you have to add a MUST c
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Clemens Wyss [mailto:clemens...@mysign.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:44 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: AW: negative wild
@mysign.ch]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2011 05:37
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: AW: negative wildcard query
>
> Karl, I just saw, that I had a typo in my initial post. It should be:
>
> Say I have a document with a single field "f". How can I se
s...
Any advices?
Thx
Clemens
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Karl Wettin [mailto:karl.wet...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2011 22:36
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: negative wildcard query
>
> You'll also need things to exclude f
You'll also need things to exclude from, eg a MatchAllDocsQuery.
karl
29 jun 2011 kl. 17.25 skrev Clemens Wyss:
> Say I have a document with field "f1". How can I search Documents which have
> not "test" in field "f"
> I tried:
> -f: *test*
> f: -*test*
> f: NOT *test*
>
> but no luck.
Say I have a document with field "f1". How can I search Documents which have
not "test" in field "f"
I tried:
-f: *test*
f: -*test*
f: NOT *test*
but no luck. Using WildCardQuery class...
Any advices?
Thx
Clemens
-
To unsubscri
Can you just lowercase a dedicated sort field and leave the others alone.
--
Ian.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Kev Kilroy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Lucene 2.4.1 with Hibernate Search 3.1.1. I have objects in the
> index, for each field I index as follows:
>
> @Fields( value = {
>
Hi,
I'm using Lucene 2.4.1 with Hibernate Search 3.1.1. I have objects in the
index, for each field I index as follows:
@Fields( value = {
@Field(index = Index.TOKENIZED, store = Store.YES),
@Field(name = "name_forSort", index = Index.UN_TOKENIZED, store =
Store.NO),
})
T
Hi,
I am wondering about wildcard queries that are more than one word, such as:
name:john s*
Note: All terms are required (default boolean operator is AND).
I know that for the query
name:s*
The s* is expanded over all s* terms in the name field.
For the "john s*" case, is it possibl
e word and then apply /expand the
> wild card query. Is this a bug with queryparser? OR Analyzer will not stem
> the word if it finds a wild card operator in it?
>
> Regards
> Ganesh
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Anshum"
> To:
> Sent: Mon
parser? OR Analyzer will not stem the word
if it finds a wild card operator in it?
Regards
Ganesh
- Original Message -
From: "Anshum"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Wildcard query
> Hi Ganesh,
>
> Its the snowball analyzer that uses English
ywhere.
Could you tell me what is the goal that is to be met here? I suppose using
just the Snowball analyzer here might be enough for you and you might just
give the wildcard query a complete skip.
--
Anshum Gupta
Naukri Labs!
http://ai-cafe.blogspot.com
The facts expressed here belong to ever
Hello all,
I am having some content with text "attention". If is search using "att*",
"attent*", the results are displayed. If i search for "attenti*" then no
results are displayed.
I am using Snowball Analyzer for Indexing and Search (Lucene v2.4.1).
Regards
Ganesh
Send instant messages to
le.com/Out-of-Memory-Error-while-using-WildCard-Query-tp21248743p21248743.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional co
BooleanQuery picks a Scorer based on the number of clauses and what their
options are ... all of teh scorers it might pick from are smart enough to
continuously reorder the clauses having them "skip ahead" to the next
document they match, beyond whatever docIds it already knows can't match
(ba
Let's say my index has two fields (Type and Description). Type is either 0 or
1 and Description is a string (up to 250 characters). I'd like to execute the
following search:
+Description:Honda* +Type:0
Would the query run faster if I specify the Type first:
+Type:0 +Description:Honda
: Hrm.. can we see a more specific example of the type of data you are trying to
: query against here?
As i understand the question, this is a fairly classic hierarchical
organization of documents. Documents Foo>Bar>Baz and Foo>Bar>Bax are both
children of Document Foo>Bar ... Foo>Barber is th
Hrm.. can we see a more specific example of the type of data you are
trying to query against here?
Matt
Cam Bazz wrote:
well the ? would work if the length of each token be same.
however, instead of A>B>C I want tags that change dynamically from 1 to
unlimited length.
I just I could just pad
well the ? would work if the length of each token be same.
however, instead of A>B>C I want tags that change dynamically from 1 to
unlimited length.
I just I could just pad every token to a normalized length such as
...000A but i am hoping there is a better method.
if we could tell lucene
I assume you want all of your queries to function in this way?
If so, you could just translate the * character into a ? at search time,
which should give you the functionality you are asking for.
Unless I'm missing something.
Matt
Cam Bazz wrote:
Hello,
Imagine I have the following documen
Hello,
Imagine I have the following documents having keys
A
A>B
A>B>C
A>B>D
A>B>C>D
now Imagine a query with keyword analyzer and a wildcard: A>B>*
which will bring me A>B>C , A>B>D and A>B>C>D
but I just want to get A>B>C and A>B>D
so can I make a query like A>B>* but does not have the > cha
; > Hi,
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1) Is it possible to get some highlighted text when using wildcard
> > query? (I
> > am using query rewrite)
> > I found that it works for queries like [prefix*suffix] or
> [prefix?suffix]
> > but I was n
document. Are you doing something
weird with your TokenStream?
- Mark
Lukas Vlcek wrote:
Hi,
I have two questions:
1) Is it possible to get some highlighted text when using wildcard
query? (I
am using query rewrite)
I found that it works for queries like [prefix*suffix] or [prefix?suffix]
but
Hi,
I have two questions:
1) Is it possible to get some highlighted text when using wildcard query? (I
am using query rewrite)
I found that it works for queries like [prefix*suffix] or [prefix?suffix]
but I was not able to get results for queries like [prefix*]
2) What kind of problems I
e-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:07 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard query with untokenized punctuation (again)
All depends on what you are looking for. Ill try and give a hint as to
what
is going on now:
When the QueryPa
his issue: how to get QueryParser to generate
MultiPhraseQueries. Got some good ideas from it, but unfortunately no
complete solution. I'll keep on hacking.
--Renaud
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:07 PM
To: java-user@
e term smith and the wildcard query ann*, both with an
occur of whatever your default operator is.
One thing I am wondering is if you even really want the query to be a
PhraseQuery or if your just accepting the behavior you getting from the
QueryParser. Right now, PhraseQuery's do not support
r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:43 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard query with untokenized punctuation (again)
Gotto agree with Erick here...best idea is just to preprocess the query
before sending it to the QueryParser.
My first thought i
stock Lucene 2.0 query parser produces a PrefixQuery for the single
token
"smith,ann". This token doesn't exist in my index, and I don't get a
match.
I have found some references to this:
http://www.nabble.com/Wildcard-query-with-untokenized-punctuation-tf3378386
.
html
but
th,anna" and
> "smith,annanicole". To find them, I enter the query <>. The
> stock Lucene 2.0 query parser produces a PrefixQuery for the single token
> "smith,ann". This token doesn't exist in my index, and I don't get a match.
>
> I have
,anna" and
"smith,annanicole". To find them, I enter the query <>. The
stock Lucene 2.0 query parser produces a PrefixQuery for the single token
"smith,ann". This token doesn't exist in my index, and I don't get a
match.
I have found some references to this:
that contained both "smith,anna" and
"smith,annanicole". To find them, I enter the query <>. The
stock Lucene 2.0 query parser produces a PrefixQuery for the single token
"smith,ann". This token doesn't exist in my index, and I don't get a match.
I
quot;smith,annanicole". To find them, I enter the query <>. The
stock Lucene 2.0 query parser produces a PrefixQuery for the single token
"smith,ann". This token doesn't exist in my index, and I don't get a match.
I have found some references to this:
http://www.nabble
: You're entirely correct about the analyzer (I'm using one that breaks on
: non-alphanumeric characters, so all punctuation is ignored). To be
: honest, I hadn't thought about altering this, but I guess I could; just
: reticent that there might be unforeseen consequences.
this is where the PerF
reasoning behind not analyzing wildcard queries is also explained in
the FAQ: "Are Wildcard, Prefix, and Fuzzy queries case sensitive?"
Regards,
Doron
>
> --Colin McGuigan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Doron Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, Mar
arch 10, 2007 2:08 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard query with untokenized punctuation
Hi Colin,
Is it possible that you are using an analyzer that breaks words on non
letters? For instance SimpleAnalyzer? if so, the doc text:
pagefile.sys
is indexed as two words:
pagefile
Hi Colin,
Is it possible that you are using an analyzer that breaks words on non
letters? For instance SimpleAnalyzer? if so, the doc text:
pagefile.sys
is indexed as two words:
pagefile sys
At search time, the query text:
pagefile.sys
is also parsed-tokenized into a two words query:
prof
-Original Message-
From: Steffen Heinrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 3/9/2007 4:31 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard query with untokenized punctuation
On 9 Mar 2007 at 15:10, McGuigan, Colin wrote:
>> I have a "filename" field in Luc
On 9 Mar 2007 at 15:10, McGuigan, Colin wrote:
> I have a "filename" field in Lucene that holds a value, like this:
> pagefile.sys
>
Hi Colin,
I'm still _very_ new to lucene, but isn't that what the un-tokenized
indexing is for?
Like in 1.9.1
doc.add(Field.Keyword("filename", "pagefile.sys"));
(Lucene 1.9.1)
I have a "filename" field in Lucene that holds a value, like this:
pagefile.sys
If I run searches through QueryParser, and I do a search for:
pagefile.sys
pagefile
pagefile.
This all works because it goes through getFieldQuery, which tokenizes
the string and generat
On Thursday 18 January 2007 14:48, Mark Miller wrote:
> Would it be more efficient to make a RAM index with just
> the doc to be highlighted and then pass the reader of that into the
> rewrite method before highlighting a query that expands?
Yes, that's a valid approach, especially using MemoryIn
Looking for opinions:
If I pass the reader of a large index to the query rewrite method just to
highlight a single doc it seems the query I generate will expand to much
more than I need. Would it be more efficient to make a RAM index with just
the doc to be highlighted and then pass the reader of
You could form a filter, using the WildCardTermEnum or RegExTermEnum and
then use the filter with a ConstantScoreQuery. You lose relevancy, but
relevancy is an ambiguous concept with wildcards anyway.
Using the query parser with a leading wildcard, even if enabled, is almost
sure to give you a "T
Thanx for reply Miles
So, avoiding leading wildcard query was design decision
for sake of efficiency. Thanx for information.
On 7/28/06, Miles Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pravin Shinde wrote:
> I am trying to use Leading wildcard query, but I am not able to do it.
> Any query
Pravin Shinde wrote:
I am trying to use Leading wildcard query, but I am not able to do it.
Any query with leading wildcard is failing with lexical error.
query = parser.parse( "*hi" )
JavaError: org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException:
Lexical error at line 1, column 1. E
Hi,
I am trying to use Leading wildcard query, but I am not able to do it.
Any query with leading wildcard is failing with lexical error.
query = parser.parse( "*hi" )
JavaError: org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException:
Lexical error at line 1, column 1. Encountered: "
Hi,
I am performing wildcard query on the contents of the indexed documents.
Using the extractTerms() method, i am extracting the terms which match the
wildcard query. Since my index is of a large size, is it possible to get the
top N terms which match the wildcard query. What is the ranking
48 matches
Mail list logo