Thanks. I think I grasp the concept now :)
On 8/27/06, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 26, 2006, at 5:11 AM, KEGan wrote:
> Erik,
>
> "Given the position increment gap between instances of same-named
> fields that is now part of Lucene, I recommend using multiple field
> instances instead."
>
> Did you mean ... recommend "NOT" using multiple field ?
I said what I meant accurately. Comparing building a single
aggregate search field either by concatenating text into a single
string and a single field, say "contents" instance, versus multiple
"contents" instances that could get separated by a position increment
gap, I recommend the second approach.
But...
> If we want to do query like "name:John" or boasting of Fields ...
> then we
> have to use multiple field instances, right ?
of course.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
