Is it possible to add records into lucene index using following
algorithm:
1) create Document object
2) add 5 fields into Document (id, name, field1, field2, field3). All
fields are stored, indexed and tokenized
3) check if the document with current id and name was added before
4) if yes
Override QueryParser and intercept queries of specific fields producing
TermQuery instead of letting it be generated from the analyzed value
using the default parser. If you want to look for "New Yo" try also
creating a prefix query from the TermQuery.
Mike
www.ardentia.com the home of NetSearch
Sorry, I've no clue as I've never used Hibernate and thus never
touched its Lucene support.
Erik
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Raul Raja Martinez wrote:
Hi Eric, I'm in the same situation, I wouldn't normally ask
something related to hibernate here but I posted something similar
in
Hi,
you have to index all object already contained in the database? Then there
is no other way then fetching all objects from the database and index them.
On Feb 8, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Raul Raja Martinez wrote:
> Hi Eric, I'm in the same situation, I wouldn't normally ask
> something related t
I resolved this issue for the time-being by adding following parameter
to the command:
-XX:CompileCommand=exclude,org/apache/lucene/index/IndexReader$1,doBody
/Daniel
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Pfeifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 8 februari 2006 08:05
To: java-user@lucene.a
Hi,
> From: Anton Potehin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1) create Document object
>
> 2) add 5 fields into Document (id, name, field1, field2,
> field3). All fields are stored, indexed and tokenized
>
> 3) check if the document with current id and name was added before
Just perform the sear
On Feb 7, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Daniel Noll wrote:
So a user might want to enter something like this:
text:camel AND tag:zoo
In this case we would want a real FieldQuery object for the
text:camel portion, and a non-Lucene Query instance for the
"tag:zoo" portion which actually queries the
Hi,
I am trying to search across some documents and have min and max experience,
min and max ctc and email as some of the search fields. I have problem using
the Range Query.
The problem is as follows. If I am trying to search for documents with exp
between 0 to 9, I get 15 hits, assuming that
You need to encode the numbers by padding to the left or another method,
we do this we know what fields are numerics and extend QueryParser to
encode the fields for searching. We also decode the number on display
below is the functions we use, the tricky bit is getting negative
numbers to work corr
> I guess is that somehow the code is not taking my range as numerals but is
> probably doing string compare.
Right. We should treat fields as strings.
Use "00" to "20" instead of 0 to 20.
When doing this, the term values which are indexed
should be "00", "01", ...
Thanks,
Koji
> -Original
Chris,
That's what I did, for debugging. The query is "biology", and here's what the
API tells me for term frequencies:
biolog 15
biologi 31
biologist 4
I actually see 13 occurrences of "biologist" and "biologists", 64 occurrences
of "biology", 27 occurrences of "biological".
I see "inform 2
This may be a tangent, but for my filters and searches, I construct the
query with "+" and "-" and what not.. is this not the right way to do
this?I haven't had to extend or write any special AND or OR classes,
I just write the query and search the once. Any advantage to writing
Filter su
: That's what I did, for debugging. The query is "biology", and here's
: what the API tells me for term frequencies:
: biolog 15
: biologi 31
: biologist 4
:
: I actually see 13 occurrences of "biologist" and "biologists", 64
: occurrences of "biology", 27 occurrences of "biological".
:
: I see "
Duh! Bingo! Mistery solved. I should have thought of this :)
The discrepancies come in with larger documents, definitely > 10K terms which
is Lucene's default maxFieldLength.
Thanks for your help, Chris
- Dmitry
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hello All,
I'm looking for some advice on how to improve scalability - we have a fairly
large lucene index of 35M documents, max 1k document size (most much
smaller) and 14 fields. We combine descriptive text together into a
"contents" field and search on that and have been very pleased with han
Hi Vince, sounds like the same issue I highlighted recently on the
java-dev list.
See here:
http://www.nabble.com/Preventing-%22killer%22-queries-t1077895.html
The problem lies in the underlying cost of reading TermDocs for very
common terms (a problem for both queries and filters)
For your
Hello all,
I have a couple of questions for the community about the 1.9
Lucene version. As I understand it, this has not been released and I
can't find an approximate date for release (I know you can download the
development version and compile it). I see a nightly build going on
(http:/
John Powers wrote:
This may be a tangent, but for my filters and searches, I construct the
query with "+" and "-" and what not.. is this not the right way to do
this?I haven't had to extend or write any special AND or OR classes,
I just write the query and search the once. Any advantage
Erik Hatcher wrote:
One interesting option is to subclass QueryParser and override
getFieldQuery. When the field is "tag", return a FilteredQuery (see
trunk codebase, or the nightly 1.9 binaries) using a Filter that
interfaces with your database. Caching of the filters would be
desirable for
Pasha Bizhan wrote:
Hi,
From: Anton Potehin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) create Document object
2) add 5 fields into Document (id, name, field1, field2,
field3). All fields are stored, indexed and tokenized
3) check if the document with current id and name was added before
Just perform
On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Daniel Noll wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
One interesting option is to subclass QueryParser and override
getFieldQuery. When the field is "tag", return a FilteredQuery
(see trunk codebase, or the nightly 1.9 binaries) using a Filter
that interfaces with your data
Hey Everyone,
I'm running into the "More than 32 required/prohibited clauses in query"
exception when running a query. I thought I understood the problem but the
following two scenarios confuse me.
1st - No Error
33 required clauses plus additional clauses that are left off b/c they
are the same
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Actually I'm pretty certain that it'll work with just getFieldQuery
overriding. You can AND or OR a FilteredQuery with any other Query
inside a BooleanQuery. I'd be surprised if it didn't work. Scoring is
the one tricky caveat to this sort of thing, and perhaps the new
"
I'm trying to upgrade our search functionality (currently, RTF/text
only, and exact phrase match only) at my company, and have run into some
concerns. Our 4 main formats are:
RTF - javax.swing looks fine, we use those classes already.
MS Word - I know that POI exists, but development on th
I don't know a lot about the error your encountering (or not encountering
as the case may be) but please for hte love of all that is sane use a
Filter instead of putting all those categories in your Query.
Your search performance and your scores will thank you.
: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:52:22 -
: I think that overriding getFieldQuery would work, yeah... you're right.
:It's just a matter of comparing efficienty of this:
:
: BooleanQuery of (TermQuery, FilteredQuery of (AllDocsQuery, Filter))
:
: to the efficiency of this:
:
: FilteredQuery of (TermQuery, Filter)
the third o
26 matches
Mail list logo
