Storing data in a document will not affect search speed.
This is helpful .
And another question :)
When I make a search which will return 50 results , it will be very
inefficient when I want to get the document between the No.45 to
No.450010 or some back document . Why was it ? Or some
21 sep 2007 kl. 09.09 skrev Jarvis:
Storing data in a document will not affect search speed.
This is helpful .
Someone should probably confirm that though.
And another question :)
When I make a search which will return 50 results , it will be
very
inefficient when I want to get th
Hi , just a simple question :
Does a Field need to be stored(Field.store.YES) to use a Field cache
on this Field?
thx!
--
Antoine Baudoux
Development Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tél.: +32 2 333 58 44
GSM: +32 499 534 538
Fax.: +32 2 648 16 53
This may be of interest:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200707.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cheers
Mark
- Original Message
From: Karl Wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, 21 September, 2007 8:35:05 AM
Subject: Re: About the sea
In a similar scenario, if we had more than 40 of such grouping, on which the
hits (not lucene hits, but hit for search by users) are not evenly
distributed, would it be good to have a LRU caching mechanism for searcher
objects.
Is there any sort of grey are that should be avoided in doing that?
Yes, I understood what you said. What I meant is, since i am using Lucene
2.1, I don't get the parse exception. So I thought it's working just like
using quotes.
Thanks,
Sonu
On 9/21/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> : I checked the lucene converted syntax (using Query.toString
Out of curiosity, how big is huge? And how many documents and
fields?
And a silly question, are you storing your fields or not (i.e.
Field.Store.NO
Erick
On 9/20/07, Michael J. Prichard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> I wanted to stay away from storing text in the indexes in
I am using SnowballAnalyzer with Hibernate search. I am using it to search
phrases in a database. It only seems to return the stemmed version of any
query. So for example, I have two phrases in the DB:
"Cheney is a nut"
and
"I hate nuts"
When I do a search for either "nut" or "nuts" it only retu
One index is around 3,000,000 items. I think around 10 fields. I store
some and don't others. I index email content and attachment content. I
store some smaller fields and not the content fields. That current
index is around 10GB but that is nothing that is about to come down the
pike. Ma
Have you gotten a copy of Luke and examined your index
to see if what's in there is actually what you think? I've found
it invaluable (see the Lucene pages).
Also, query.toString() is your friend. It'll show you what the
actual query looks like after parsing.
You could also, as a test, construct
Hi, thanks for your help..
My query.toString() when I do a search for "nuts" is:
FullTextQueryImpl(TEXT:nut)
And the results from Luke are:
2 _hibernate_class
com.stottlerhenke.predict.service.persistence.Prediction
1 TEXTi
1 TEXTnut
1 TEXTnuts
1
Hi,
After doing some more analysis with Luke it does seem like that it is
something about that Analyzer, not my code, since I get the same results in
there.
K
Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Have you gotten a copy of Luke and examined your index
> to see if what's in there is actually what you think?
Hi,
Did you use the same snowball analyzer to create your index? Remember
that you usually need to use the same analyzer for indexing and
searching.
Patrick
On 9/21/07, Galactikuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> After doing some more analysis with Luke it does seem like that it is
> somethi
13 matches
Mail list logo
