Hi Yonik:
A simple RangeFilter did the trick
> public class NotNullRangeFilter extends org.apache.lucene.search.Filter {
>private RangeFilter rangeFilter;
>public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
>rangeFilter = RangeFilter.More("lastUpdatedDate"/*Field to sort*
You're on the right track I think... perhaps try using RangeFilter
directly rather than creating your own class. Something like:
Filter filter = RangeFilter.More("lastUpdatedDate","");
searcher.search(query, filter)
If that works for you, then the next step would be to look at
CachingWrapperFilt
Hi Yonik,
Thanks for your reply.
In my case I don't want those document that has Null value for the field
that I am willing to sort
I tried writing my own filter using RangeFilter, but it doesn't work.
I used something like the following in my custom filter.
public class NotNullRangeFilter ext
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Reetha Hariharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am searching using one field, say X and want to sort the results using
> another, say Y (Which can have null values). But I am expecting Sort to
> ignore all the null values and just sort only records that has values i
Hi,
I am a newbie.
I just configured lucene using hibernate search. But I find that the sorting
doesn't ignore null values.
I am searching using one field, say X and want to sort the results using
another, say Y (Which can have null values). But I am expecting Sort to
ignore all the null values
Erick Erickson wrote:
doc.add(
new Field(
"f",
"This is Some Mixed, case Junk($*%& With Ugly
SYmbols",
Field.Store.YES,
Field.Index.TOKENIZED));
pr
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 10:58 -0500, Alex Wang wrote:
> Toke, you mentioned "Using a Collator works but does take a fair amount
> of memory", can you please elaborate a little more on that. Thanks.
We have an index with 10 million records that takes up 37GB. Practically
all records have a title, whi
No problem Erick. Thanks for clarifying it.
Alex
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:35 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene sorting case-sensitive by default?
Sorry, I was confused about this for the
se, or take any action based on
> this message or any information herein. If you have received this
> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
> and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick E
you for your cooperation.
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:24 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene sorting case-sensitive by default?
Several things:
1> do you need to display all the fields? Wo
ate a little more on that. Thanks.
>
> Alex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:13 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene sorting case-sensitive by default?
>
> On Fri, 2008
ache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene sorting case-sensitive by default?
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:40 -0500, Alex Wang wrote:
> Looks like Lucene is separating upper case and lower case while
sorting.
As Tom points out, default sorting uses natural order. It's worth noting
that this implies that defa
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 11:40 -0500, Alex Wang wrote:
> Looks like Lucene is separating upper case and lower case while sorting.
As Tom points out, default sorting uses natural order. It's worth noting
that this implies that default sorting does not produce usable results
as soon as you use non-ASCI
I've often stored a special sort field that's lower-cased.
On Jan 11, 2008 11:40 AM, Alex Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I was searching my index with sorting on a field called "Label" which is
> not tokenized, here is what came back:
>
>
>
> Extended Sites Catalog Asset Store
String fields are sorted using natural (lexicographic) order. For characters
in ASCII range this means uppercase letters will sort before lowercase
letters (e.g., 'A' U+0041 sorts before 'a' U+0061). This behaviour is
documented on in the JavaDocs for org.apache.lucene.search.Sort.
-tree
On
Hi All,
I was searching my index with sorting on a field called "Label" which is
not tokenized, here is what came back:
Extended Sites Catalog Asset Store
Extended Sites Catalog Asset Store SALES
Print Catalog 2
Print catalog test
Test Print Catalog
Test refresh catalog
print test 3
ed the sortable
> fields as 'stored' then the process above would preserve those
> fields and hence sorting would proceed as normal.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Thanks
>
> Alan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
ould preserve those
fields and hence sorting would proceed as normal.
Does that make sense?
Thanks
Alan
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 9/14/2006 18:00
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: Newbie question: lucene sort
On 9/14/06, Alan Boshier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That was my understanding (that they had to be indexed) but
making them stored seems to have fixed the problem we were
seeing, which is odd.
Not being an expert on how lucene works internally, I'm
struggling to see how this change could have ma
Original Message-
From: Mordo, Aviran (EXP N-NANNATEK) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 9/14/2006 17:18
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc:
Subject:RE: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored
fields
AFIK, the field has to be indexed, but I don't think it
On 9/14/06, Alan Boshier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it a requirement when creating a field for sorting to
make it stored?
No, stored doesn't matter... it must be indexed though.
-Yonik
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server
-
ssage-
From: Mordo, Aviran (EXP N-NANNATEK) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 9/14/2006 17:18
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc:
Subject:RE: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored fields
AFIK, the field has to be indexed, but I don't think it has to be stored
apache.org
Subject: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored fields
Hi
We are seeing intermittent problems with searches that use sorted fields
(in lucene 1.4.3).
If we add the fields to our Documents as 'unstored' then we start to see
results that have been sorted by Document I
Hi
We are seeing intermittent problems with searches that use
sorted fields (in lucene 1.4.3).
If we add the fields to our Documents as 'unstored' then
we start to see results that have been sorted by Document ID.
The problem goes away if we add the fields as 'stored'.
Is it a requirement when
I don't know if there is anyway for a Custom Sort to access the lucene
score -- but another approach that works very well is to use the
FunctionQuery classes from Solr...
http://incubator.apache.org/solr/docs/api/org/apache/solr/search/function/package-summary.html
...you can make a FunctionQuer
Hi,
I need to change the lucene sorting to give just a bit more relevance to
the recent documents (but i don't want to sort by date). I'd like to mix
the lucene score with the date of the document.
I'm following the example in "Lucene in Action", chapter 6. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
