Hi,
I am trying to add some fields to lucene and I heard that adding int values
are going to give much faster retrieval than adding to String values. So I
want to add int values to document . But
document.add(Field.Text("Candidate", objResultSet.getString("ROW_ID")));
document.add(Field.K
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Ravi wrote:
I am trying to add some fields to lucene and I heard that adding
int values
are going to give much faster retrieval than adding to String
values. So I
want to add int values to document . But
document.add(Field.Text("Candidate", objResultSet.getStr
You stole my thunder! :-) Was going to post the URL after doing the
actual talk, but that's all right. I will post a few changes I have
made on the plane tonight or tomorrow to the website below.
Let me know if you have any questions...
Luke Nezda wrote:
Where are my manners :-/
Anyway, I
Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're also thinking about implementing something similar to LSI within
> ActiveMath which is lucene-powered where both formulae and text
> searching would benefit of the latent-semantic-similarity. I've been
> refrained of doing "exactly this" at least
Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You stole my thunder! :-) Was going to post the URL after doing the
> actual talk, but that's all right. I will post a few changes I have
> made on the plane tonight or tomorrow to the website below.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions...
I h
Paul Elschot wrote:
There is one indexing parameter that might help performance
for BooleanScorer2, it is the skip interval in Lucene's TermInfosWriter.
The current value is 16, and there was a question about it
on 16 Oct 2005 on java-dev with title "skipInterval".
I don't know how the value of
: Oh, BTW: I just found the DisjunctionMaxQuery class, recently added it
: seems. Do you think this query structure could benefit from using it
: instead of the BooleanQuery?
DisjunctionMaxQuery kicks ass (in my opinion), and It certainly seems like
(from your query structure) it's something you
We use boosts that are calculated based on the frequencies and the
standard alpha, beta, gamma multipliers from Rochio. Non-relevant terms
decrement the frequency. If a term is <= 0, we remove the term (someone
has posted a contribution for dealing with negative weights, we just
haven't adopt
On 12/13/05, Ian Soboroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We're also thinking about implementing something similar to LSI within
> > ActiveMath which is lucene-powered where both formulae and text
> > searching would benefit of the latent-semantic-simil
Hi Erik
Thanks for your solution. I want to do exactly what you have mentioned in
the mail . I would like to search on the fields what I have added to lucene
.That is search on days and sort on those days value and moreover how to
add multiple field querys to lucene . I don't have any idea how to
Well done, Grant. Very informative.
Question on Term Vectors: with their inclusion in an index, have you noticed
any degradation in performance, either from a search effiiciency or
maintenance point-of-view? Given the power of term vectors, if the perf
impact is negligible, I'm curious to the re
11 matches
Mail list logo
