Thank you, Chris. You have confirmed what I had all but resigned myself
to (and you summarized my goal precisely). I am sticking with the two
versions of the field and just accepting the fact that the search
clients will need to use my custom query parser.
Even if one doesn't get the answer one w
Thank you, Chris. You have confirmed what I had all but resigned myself
to (and you summarized my goal precisely). I am sticking with the two
versions of the field and just accepting the fact that the search
clients will need to use my custom query parser.
Even if one doesn't get the answer one w
here is not way to tell them apart at query time.
: Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
: From: Robert Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: stemmed search and exact match on "same" field
:
: I'
I've been puzzling this one for a while now, and can't figure it out.
The idea is to allow stemmed searches and exact matches (tokenized, but
unstemmed phrase searches) on the same field. The subject of this email
had "same" in quotes, because it's from the search-client perspective
that the sa
