I'm converting a Lucene 2.3.2 to 2.4.1 (with a view to going to 2.9.4).
Many of our indexes are 5M+ Documents, however, only a small subset of these are
relevant to any user. As a DocIdSet, backed by a BitSet or OpenBitSet, is
rather inefficient in terms of memory use, what is the recommended
I have a test case written for 2.3.2 that tested an index time boost on a field
of 0.0F and then did a search using Hits and got 0 results.
I'm now in the process of upgrading to 2.9.4 and am removing all use of Hits in
my test cases and using a Collector instead. Now the test case fails as it
Upgrading from 2.3.2 to 2.9.4 I get NPE as below
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue$1.createValue(FieldSortedHitQueue.java:224)
at
org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:224)
at
org.apache.lucene.s
Migrating some code from 2.3.2 to 2.9.4 and I have custom Collectors.
Now there are multiple calls to collect and each call needs to adjust the passed
doc id by docBase as given in SetNextReader.
However, if you want to fetch the document in the collector, what
docId/IndexReader combination s
Thanks Uwe, I assumed as much.
On 18/04/2011 7:28 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Document d = reader.document(doc)
This is the correct way to do it.
Uwe
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additi
I have a custom TopDocsCollector and need to collect a payload from each final
document hit. The payload comes from a single term in each hit.
When collecting the payload, I don't want to fetch the payload during the
collect() method as it will make fetches which may subsequently be bumped fro
Michael McCandless wrote:
TermDocs.skipTo() only moves forwards.
Can you use a stored field to retrieve this information, or do you
really need to store it per-term-occurrence in your docs?
I discussed my use case with Doron earlier and there were two options, either to
use payloads or stor
Michael McCandless wrote:
Ahh right, my short term memory failed me ;) I now remember this thread.
Excused :) I expect you have real work to occupy your mind!
Yes, though LUCENE-1231 (column stride stored fields) should help this.
I see from JIRA that MB has started working on this - It's
The Javadoc for this method has the following comment:
"This requires this index not be among those to be added, and the upper bound*
of those segment doc counts not exceed maxMergeDocs. "
What does the second part of that mean, which is especially confusing given that
MAX_MERGE_DOCS is depre
I am creating several temporary batches of indexes to separate indices and
periodically will merge those batches to a set of master indices. I'm using
IndexWriter#addIndexesNoOptimise(), but problem that gives me is that the master
may already contain the index for that document and I get a dup
Thanks Karsten,
I decided first to delete all duplicates from master(iW) and then to insert
all temporary indices(other).
I reached the same conclusion. As your code shows, it's a simple enough
solution. You had a good point with the iW.abort() in the rollback case.
Antony
---
Up to now I have only needed to search a single index, but now I will have many
index shards to search across. My existing search mantained cached filters for
the index as well as a cache of my own unique ID fields in the index, keyed by
Lucene DocId.
Now I need to search multiple indices, I
Is it possible to write a document with different analyzers in different fields?
PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Akanksha Baid wrote:
I have indexed multiple documents - each of them have 3 fields ( id, tag
, text). Is there an easy way to determine the set of tags for a given
query without iterating through all the hits?
For example if I have 100 documents in my index and my set of tag = {A,
B, C}. Query
In 2.4, as well as IndexWriter.deleteDocuments(Term) there is also
IndexReader.deleteDocuments(Term).
I understand opening a reader is expensive, so does this means using
IndexWriter.deleteDocuments would be faster from a closed index position?
As the IndexReader instance is newer, it has bet
Michael McCandless wrote:
If you have nothing open already, and all you want to do is delete
certain documents and make a commit point, then using IndexReader vs
IndexWriter should show very little difference in speed.
Thanks. This use case can assume there may be nothing open. I prefer
Ind
The javadocs state
"This requires ... and the upper bound* of those segment doc counts not exceed
maxMergeDocs."
Can one of the gurus please explain what that means and what needs to be done to
find out whether an index being merged fits that criteria.
Thanks
Antony
Thanks Mike, I'm still on 2.3.1, so will upgrade soon.
Antony
Michael McCandless wrote:
This was an attempt on addIndexesNoOptimize's part to "respect" the
maxMergeDocs (which prevents large segments from being merged) you had
set on IndexWriter.
However, the check was too pedantic, and was
Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
I have a field which is called filename and contains a filename which
can of course be lowercase or upppercase or a mixture...
I would like to do the following:
+filename:/*scm*.doc
That should result in getting things like
/...SCMtest.doc
/...scmtest.doc
/...scm
I'm adding Documents in batches to an index with IndexWriter. In certain
circumstances, I do not want to add the Document if it already exists, where
existence is determined by field id=myId.
Is there any way to do this with IndexWriter or do I have to open a reader and
look for the term id:X
Just wondered which was more efficient under the hood
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
terms[i] = new Term("id", doc_key[i]);
This
writer.deleteDocuments(terms);
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
writer.addDocument(doc[i]);
Or this
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
writer.updateDoc
Michael McCandless wrote:
Lucene doesn't provide any way to do this, except opening a reader.
Opening a reader is not "that" expensive if you use it for this
purpose. EG neither norms nor FieldCache will be loaded if you just
enumerate the term docs.
Thanks for that info. These indexes will
Thanks for that info. These indexes will be large, in the 10s of millions.
id field is unique and is 29 bytes. I guess that's still a lot of data to
trawl through to get to the term.
Have you tested how long it takes to look up docs from your id?
Not in indexes that size in a live environme
I am merging Index A to Index B. First I read the terms for a particular field
from index A and some of the documents in A get deleted.
I then enumerate the terms on a different field also in index A, but the terms
from the deleted document are still present.
The termEnum.docFreq() also retu
t 1:04 AM, Antony Bowesman wrote:
I am merging Index A to Index B. First I read the terms for a particular
field from index A and some of the documents in A get deleted.
I then enumerate the terms on a different field also in index A, but the
terms from the deleted document are still pres
I'm using Lucene 2.3.2 and have a date field used for sorting, which is
MMDDHHMM. I get an exception when the FieldCache is being generated as follows:
java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "190400-412317"
java.lang.NumberFormatException.forInputString(NumberFormatException.jav
I'm on 2.3.2 and looking to move to 2.9.1 or 3.0.0
In 2.9.1 TopFieldDocCollector is
"Deprecated. Please use TopFieldCollector instead."
in 3.0.0 TopFieldCollector says
NOTE: This API is experimental and might change in incompatible ways in the next
release
What is the suggested path for mig
Hi,
I'm using IndexReader.deleteDocuments(Term) to delete documents in batches. I
need the deleted count, so I cannot use IndexWriter.deleteDocuments().
What I want to do is delete documents based on more than one term, but not like
IndexWriter.deleteDocuments(Term[]) which deletes all docum
int delCount = 0;
while(scorer.next()) {
reader.deleteDocument(scorer.doc());
delCount++;
}
that iterates over all the docIDs without scoring them and without
building up a Hit for each, etc.
Mike
"Antony Bowesman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm using IndexReade
My application batch adds documents to the index using IndexWriter.addDocument.
Another thread handles searchers, creating new ones as needed, based on a
policy. These searchers open a new IndexReader and there is currently no
synchronisation between this action and any being performed by my w
Using Lucene 2.1
Antony Bowesman wrote:
My application batch adds documents to the index using
IndexWriter.addDocument. Another thread handles searchers, creating new
ones as needed, based on a policy. These searchers open a new
IndexReader and there is currently no synchronisation between
Looks like I got myself into a twist for nothing - the reader will see a
consistent view, despite what the writer does as long as the reader remains open.
Appologies for the noise...
Antony
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
I'd like to 'update' a single Document in a Lucene index. In practice, this
'update' is actually just a removal of a single TermPosition for a given Term
for a given doc Id.
I don't think this is currently possible, but would it be easy to change Lucene
to support this type of usage?
The re
cument and most are not stored
Antony
Otis
-- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message From: Antony Bowesman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 12:47:05 AM
Subject: Deleting a single TermPo
Ariel wrote:
The problem I have is that my application spends a lot of time to index all
the documents, the delay to index 10 gb of pdf documents is about 2 days (to
convert pdf to text I am using pdfbox) that is of course a lot of time,
others applications based in lucene, for instance ibm omni
Beard, Brian wrote:
Question:
The documents that I index have two id's - a unique document id and a
record_id that can link multiple documents together that belong to a
common record.
I'd like to use something like TopDocs to return the first 1024 results
that have unique record_id's, but I wil
fetches the
external id's from the searcher and places them in the cache?
-----Original Message-
From: Antony Bowesman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:19 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how do I get my own TopDocHitCollector?
Beard, Brian wr
Erick Erickson wrote:
doc.add(
new Field(
"f",
"This is Some Mixed, case Junk($*%& With Ugly
SYmbols",
Field.Store.YES,
Field.Index.TOKENIZED));
pr
vivek sar wrote:
I need to be able to sort on optime as well, thus need to store it .
Lucene's default sorting does not need the field to be stored, only indexed as
untokenized.
Antony
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
Hi,
I just noticed that although the Javadocs for Lucene 2.2 state that the dates
for DateTools use UTC as a timezone, they are actually using GMT.
Should either the Javadocs be corrected or the code corrected to use UTC
instead.
Antony
-
Toke Eskildsen wrote:
== Average over the first 50.000 queries ==
metis_flash_RAID0_8GB_i37_t2_l21.log - 279.6 q/sec
metis_flash_RAID0_8GB_i37_t2_l23.log - 202.3 q/sec
metis_flash_RAID0_8GB_i37_v23_t2_l23.log - 195.9 q/sec
== Average over the first 340.000 queries ==
metis_flash_RAID0_8GB_i37
vivek sar wrote:
I've a field as NO_NORM, does it has to be untokenized to be able to
sort on it?
NO_NORMS is the same as UNTOKENIZED + omitNorms, so you can sort on that.
Antony
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes of course, the answers to your questions are important too.
But no anwser at all until now :(
One example:
1.5 million documents
Approx 15 fields per document
DB is 10-15GB (can't find correct figure)
All on one machine. No stats on search usage though.
We're abo
Subodh Damle wrote:
Is there any reliable implementation for parsing email mailbox files (mbox
format), especially large (>50MB) archives ? Even after searching lucene
mailing list archives, googling around, I couldn't find one. I took a look
at Apache James project which seems to offer some supp
Chris McGee wrote:
These tips have significantly improved the time to build the directory and
search it. However, I have noticed that when I perform term queries using
a searcher many times in rapid succession and iterate over all of the hits
it can take a significant time. To perform 1000 te
We're planning to archive email over many years and have been looking at using
DB to store mail meta data and Lucene for the indexed mail data, or just Lucene
on its own with email data and structure stored as XML and the raw message
stored in the file system.
For some customers, the volumes a
Paul Elschot wrote:
Op Friday 11 April 2008 13:49:59 schreef Mathieu Lecarme:
Use Filter and BitSet.
From the personnal data, you build a Filter
(http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_3_1/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Fil
ter.html) wich is used in the main index.
With 1 billion mails, and possibly
Thanks all for the suggestions - there was also another thread "Lucene index on
relational data" which had crossover here.
That's an interesting idea about using ParallelReader for the changable index.
I had thought to just have a triplet indexed 'owner:mailId:label' in each Doc
and have multi
Chris Hostetter wrote:
you can't ... that's why i said you'd need to rebuild the smaller index
completley on a periodic basis (going in the same order as the docs in the
Mmm, the annotations would only be stored in the index. It would be possible to
store them elsewhere, so I can investigate
That paper from 1997 is pretty old, but mirrors our experiences in those days.
Then, we used Solaris processor sets to really improve performance by binding
one of our processes to a particular CPU while leaving the other CPUs to manage
the thread intensive work.
You can bind processes/LWPs to
I have a design where I will be using multiple index shards to hold approx 7.5
million documents per index per month over many years. These will be large
static R/O indexes but the corresponding smaller parallel index will get many
frequent changes.
I understand from previous replies by Hoss
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
I have a thought ;) Perhaps you could use a FilteredIndexReader to maintain a
map between new IDs and old IDs, and remap on the fly. Although I think that
some parts of Lucene depend on the fact that in a normal index the IDs are
monotonically increasing ... this would co
I seem to recall some discussion about updating a payload, but I can't find it.
I was wondering if it were possible to use a payload to implement 'modify' of a
Lucene document. For example, I have an ID field, which has a unique ID
refering to an external DB. For example, I would like to stor
Hi Mike,
Unfortunately you will have to delete the old doc, then reindex a new
doc, in order to change any payloads in the document's Tokens.
This issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1231
which is still in progress, could make updating stored (but not indexed)
fields a m
Ganesh - yahoo wrote:
Hello all,
Documents coressponding to multiple users are to be indexed. Each user is
going to search only his documents. Only Administrator could search all users
data.
Is it good to have one database for each User or to have only one database
for all Users? Which will be
I started playing with payloads and have been trying to work out how to get the
data into the payload
I have a field where I want to add the following untokenized fields
A1
A2
A3
With these fields, I would like to add the payloads
B1
B2
B3
Firstly, it looks like you cannot add payloads to un
Thanks for your comments Doron. I found the earlier discussions on the dev list
(21/12/06), where this issue is discussed - my use case is similar to Nadav Har'El.
Implementing payloads via Tokens explicitly prevents the use of payloads for
untokenized fields, as they only support field.string
I assume you already know this but just to make sure what I meant was clear
- on tokenization but still indexing just means that the entire field's text
becomes a single unchanged token. I believe this is exactly what
SingleTokenTokenStream can buy you - a single token, for which you can pre
set a
Doron Cohen wrote:
The API definitely doesn't promise this.
AFAIK implementation wise it happens to be like this but I can be wrong and
plus it might change in the future. It would make me nervous to rely on
this.
I made some tests and it 'seems' to work, but I agree, it also makes me nervous
Cyndy wrote:
I want to keep user text files indexed separately, I will have about 10,000
users and each user may have about 20,000 short files, and I need to keep
privacy. So the idea is to have one folder with the text files and index
for each user, so when search will be done, it will be poin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Anthony for your response, I did not know about that field.
You make your own fields in Lucene, it is not something Lucene gives you.
But still I have a problem and it is about privacy. The users are concerned
about privacy and so, we thought we could have all
You have to create a new Field class with "new Field(...", i.e.
replace doc.add(Field.Text with doc.add(new Field(...
Antony
Jan Pieper wrote:
No it is not your fault, it is mine, but it also does not function. My
compiler
gives me this error message:
---
Hello,
I'm new to Lucene and wanted some advice on analyzers, stemmers and language
analysis. I've got LIA, so have read it's chapters.
I am writing a framework that needs to be able to index documents from a range
of languages where just the character set of the document is known. Has anyo
Hi,
I am a newbie with Lucene and I am working out the best way to index email data.
An earlier poster talked about index attachments with two alternatives:
However, there is a third alternative:
Each message/attachment is indexed as a separate Document with the email header
data included in
Hi,
I have a field "attname" that is indexed with Field.Store.YES,
Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED. I have a document with the attname of
"IqTstAdminGuide2.pdf".
QueryParser parser = new QueryParser("body", new StandardAnalyzer());
Query query = parser.parse("attname:IqTstAdminGuide2.pdf");
fails
Doron Cohen wrote:
Hi Antony, you cannot instruct the query parser to do that. Note that an
Thanks, I suspected as much. I've changed it to make the field tokenized.
field name. This is an application logic to know that a certain query is
not to be tokenized. In this case you could create yo
I've been trying to understand how idf is arrived at from a query. I have a
single Document with 9 fields. One field "subject" has the phrase "RFC2822 -
Internet Message Format" and a second "body" has the contents of rfc2822.
The other fields contain additional meta data. If I search for su
Yonik Seeley wrote:
idf is dependent only on the corpus, not on the individual document.
The formula is here:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html
1+log(1/2) = 0.30685282
Thanks Yonik, whilst all is not yet completely clear, it is much more so!
Ant
spinergywmy wrote:
Hi,
I having this indexing the pdf file performance issue. It took me more
than 10 sec to index a pdf file about 200kb. Is it because I only have a
segment file? How can I make the indexing performance better?
If you're using the log4j PDFBox jar file, you must make sure
Hi,
I have the IndexWriter.infoStream set to System.out and get the following
merging segments _4m (2 docs) _4n (1 docs) into _4o (3 docs)
java.io.IOException: Cannot delete PathToDB\_29.cfs; Will re-try later.
java.io.IOException: Cannot delete PathToDB\_29.cfs; Will re-try later.
Is this norm
Hi Mike,
Do you also have a reader open against this index? If yes, then this is
totally normal on Windows. A reader holds open the segments cfs files
that it is using, so when the writer tries to delete them (because they
were merged) the delete fails and Lucene will try again later.
Aha,
Hi,
I'm writing a mapping mechanism between an existing search interface and Lucene
and wondered how to support a single NOT/- query.
Given the query "-attribute", then from an ealier comment by Chris Hostetter
where he says "you can't have a negative clause in isolation by itself", I
assume
Hi,
I have a search UI that allows search criteria to be input against specific
fields, e.g. Subject.
In order to create a suitable Lucene Query, I must analyze that String so that
it becomes a set of Tokens which I can then turn into Terms. QueryParser seems
to fit the bill for that, howev
Martin Braun wrote:
Please refer to the answers to my question on this list:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=7337585&framed=y
Shortly spoken: SpanFirstQuery works like a charm :)
Thanks Martin, that looks just right. I'll try it.
Antony
--
Daniel Naber wrote:
That's correct. For the "find everything" part you can use
MatchAllDocsQuery.
Thanks - I hadn't noticed that Query.
Antony
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMA
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: important:conference agenda
: I want to end up with
:
: +subject:important +subject:conference +subject:agenda
:
: I've written something to do this, but I know it is not as clever as QP as
: currently it can only create BooleanQueries with TermQueries and cannot handle
Mark Miller wrote:
if you scan the query and escape all colons (ie \:) then you should be
good (I have not verified). Of course you will not be able to do a field
search, but that seems to be what your after.
Thanks for that suggestion. However, a standard un-escaped parse gives
Input - impo
Stephan Spat wrote:
Hello again!
It replaces german umlauts, e.g. ä <=> a, ü <=> u, ... . So no umlauts
are in the index. For searching I use the same Analyzer. When I do a
simple search for a word with umlauts there is no problem. But if I use
addidionally wildcards I suppose the word is not
Michael Rusch wrote:
Sorry if I'm missing the point here, but what about simply replacing colons
with spaces first?
Michael.
Err, thanks. I've been in too deep at the wrong end :) Wood, trees and
visibility spring to mind!
Antony
--
Erik Hatcher wrote:
It doesn't seem like you need a "parser" at all for your field-specific
search fields. Simply tokenize, using a Lucene Analyzer, the text field
and build up a BooleanQuery of all the tokens.
That's what I'm currently doing, but I was getting bogged down with trying to
s
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:54 AM, spinergywmy wrote:
For my scenario will be every time the users upload the single file, I
need to index that particular file. Previously was because the previous
version of pdfbox integrate with log4j.jar file and I believe is the
log4j.j
spinergywmy wrote:
I have posted this question before and this time I found that it could be
pdfbox problem and this pdfbox I downloaded doesn't use the log4j.jar. To
index the app 2.13mb pdf file took me 17s and total time to upload a file is
18s.
Re: PFDBox.
I have a 2.5Mb test file that
Daniel Naber wrote:
On Saturday 09 December 2006 02:25, Scott Smith wrote:
What is the best way to do this? Is changing the boost the right
answer? Can a field's boost be zero?
Yes, just use: term1 term2 category1^0 category2^0. Erick's Filter idea is
also useful.
Isn't it also true that
Hi,
I'm running load tests with Lucene 2.0, SUN's JDK 6 on Windows XP2, dual core
CPU. I have 8 worker threads adding a few hundred K documents, split between
two Lucene indexes, I've started getting
java.io.IOException: The handle is invalid in places like
java.io.RandomAccessFile.writeByt
Hi Mike,
I saw Mike McCandless JIRA issue
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-669
Is the patch referenced there useful for a 2.0 system. I would like
to use the lockless commit stuff, but am waiting until I get the core
system working well.
I am also getting IOException in some of
Hi,
In trying to understand scoring and boosting a bit better, I tried setting a
boost of 0.0F for a field. As it's used as a multiplier, I wanted to see how it
affects score.
I added a single document with two fields, one with the default boost and
another with a boost of 0.0F. hits.score
Chris Hostetter wrote:
1) you can never compare the score from a Hits object with the score from
an Explanation. Explanation has the raw score, Hits has the
psuedo-normalized score.
Thanks for the comments. Where I was trying to get to was whether a match on a
field with boost of 0.0 can eve
Hi Chris,
: If I search for a document where the field boost is 0.0 then the document is
not
: found I just search that field. Is this expected???
you mean you search on: A^0and get no results even though
documents contain A, and if you search on: +A^0 B^1 you see
those d
Thanks a lot for your answers Hoss. This list is really well supported!
Antony
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: It's the index time boost, rather than query time boost. This short example
: shows the behaviour of searches for
A... index boosts! ... totally didn't occur to me that was what you
we
Not sure if you're still after a solution, but I had a similar issue and I
modified QueryParser.jj to not treat : as a field name terminator, so work:
would then just be given as work: to the analyzer and treated as a search term.
Antony
Felix Litman wrote:
We want to be able to return a res
Hi,
I have a field to which I add several bits of information, e.g.
doc.add(new Field("x", "first bit"));
doc.add(new Field("x", "second part"));
doc.add(new Field("x", "third section"));
I am using SpanFirstQuery to search them with something like:
while...
SpanTermQuery stquery = new SpanT
Hi Erick,
I'm not sure you can, since all the interfaces I use alter the increment
between successive terms, but I'll be the first to admit that there are
many
nooks and crannies that I don't know about... But I suspect that a negative
increment is not supported intentionally
I read your
When adding documents to an index has anyone seen either
java.lang.ClassCastException: org.apache.lucene.analysis.Token cannot be cast to
org.apache.lucene.index.Posting
at
org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentWriter.sortPostingTable(DocumentWriter.java:238)
at org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentW
Hi Erick,
What this does is allow you to put gaps between successive sets of terms
indexed in the same field. For instance...
doc.add("field", "some stuff");
doc.add("field", "bunch hooey");
doc.add("field", "what is this");
writer.add(doc);
In this case, there would be the following positions,
Ahh, now it falls into place.
Thanks
Antony
Chris Hostetter wrote:
it's not called Analyzer.getPositionAfterGap .. it's
Analyzer.getPositionIncrementGap .. it's the Position Increment used when
there is a Gap -- so returning 0 means that no exra increment is used, and
multiple values are treate
Using QueryParser to parse *tex* seems to create a PrefixQuery rather than
WildcardQuery due to the trailing *, rather than Wildcard because of the other
leading *.
As a result, this does not match, for example "context". I've swapped the order
of WILDTERM and PREFIXTERM in queryparsr.jj but
in the JavaCC compiled code and I'm not familiar enough
with JavaCC high level stuff to know how to make it choose based on an existing
condition.
Regards
Antony
: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:36:43 +1100
: From: Antony Bowesman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apa
I'll probably end up ducking it on the basis that the system
directory defaults to a surname/firstname name order, but of course there's no
guarantee that mail from other systems will have those names in that order, e.g.
#1 To: Bowesman Antony
#2 To: Antony Bowesman
makes this 'starts
Felix Litman wrote:
Yes. thank you. How did you make that modification not to treat ":" as a
field-name terminator?
Is it using this Or some other way?
I removed the : handling stuff from QueryParser.jj in the method:
Query Clause(String field) :
I removed this section
---
[
LOOKAHE
I'm extracting text from Word using TextMining.org extractors - it works better
than POI because it extracts Word 6/95 as well as 97-2002, which POI cannot do.
However, I'm trying to find out about licence issues with the TM jar. The TM
website seems to be permanently hacked these days.
Anyon
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
