I have updated my doc.add() to use Store.YES...
>> 'search' is the desired search string
>> 'searchText' is the choosen indexing string
>> -both these strings are correctly entered
>I realized that. I was asking about an example of theactual strings that
>demostrates the problem.
I am currently searching for "test" which makes 'search' = "test*'. Also I
do not remember the exact string for 'searchText' but it did start with
"test" in one occurrence.
>What is the wrong behavior you see? Is it that the same query text did not
>return the expected documents? Or do you see some results without, say, the
>correct summary? If this one is the case, most likely your application is
>counting on stored text so the change above might fix that.
I can use the debugger (and step through the index process) and see that
there is at least one occurence where a 'searchText' is added which contains
"test". The problem though is that this one is not in the results when
searching. Mean that I have found that these values are indexed (as far as
I know - indexWriter adds it), but when searching against them, they are not
coming up in the search.
>Yes and no. This should not cause the problem you now have. But this is not
>efficient, as opening a searcher takes time, and getting it to speed
>(warming up 'system IO') takes longer. You would see faster search if you
>use keep a single searcher instance to be used for queries (you can use the
>same searcher for concurrent searches) and re-open that searcher once in a
>while - when the index was updated. There were several discussions on this
>in the mailing list, and I think the FAQ also mentions this.
Thank you for the idea. I think I will run this by the higher ups to see if
I can do this task next.
I hope this gives you a better idea of what I am trying to accomplish.
Thank you for your help.
Doron Cohen wrote:
>
> djd0383 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/09/2006 11:20:37:
>> This all worked fine in v1.4 when using:
>> doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns));
>
> The equivalent of 1.4 use
> doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns));
> would be with 2.0:
> doc1.add(new Field("allText", searchColumns, Store.YES,
> Index.TOKENIZED));
>
> So not storing the field content is one difference from your 1.4 code. I
> am
> not sure this is the problem cause, since I cannot tell if your
> application
> is using the stored content at all. But give it a try.
>
>> This seems to build an incorrect index. I know this is true because I
>> can see entries that are not indexed. The searching and indexing have
> been
>> minorly editted from the v1.4 code and seem to be correct.
>
> What is the wrong behavior you see? Is it that the same query text did not
> return the expected documents? Or do you see some results without, say,
> the
> correct summary? If this one is the case, most likely your application is
> counting on stored text so the change above might fix that.
>
>> When you say open reader/searcher after closing writer. I am currently
>> creating an instance of these after creating the query while a user is
>> searching. Is this good enough?
>
> Yes and no. This should not cause the problem you now have. But this is
> not
> efficient, as opening a searcher takes time, and getting it to speed
> (warming up 'system IO') takes longer. You would see faster search if you
> use keep a single searcher instance to be used for queries (you can use
> the
> same searcher for concurrent searches) and re-open that searcher once in a
> while - when the index was updated. There were several discussions on this
> in the mailing list, and I think the FAQ also mentions this.
>
>> 'search' is the desired search string
>> 'searchText' is the choosen indexing string
>> -both these strings are correctly entered
>
> I realized that. I was asking about an example of theactual strings that
> demostrates the problem.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Upgrading-1.4-to-2.0---Indexing-Issue.-tf2358182.html#a6573081
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
