Hi Terry, The one place I know where KeywordAnalyzer is definitely useful is when it is used in conjunction with PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper.
Steve dontspamterry wrote: > Hi Otis, > > I tried both ways, did some queries, and results are the same, so I guess > it's a matter of preference??? > > -Terry > > > Otis Gospodnetic wrote: >> Terry, >> I think you are right. Just use UN_TOKENIZED, that will do what you need. >> >> Otis >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: dontspamterry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:20:11 PM >> Subject: KeywordAnalyzer vs. Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have an ID field which I index using the KeywordAnalyzer. Since this >> analyzer tokenizes the entire stream as a single token, would you say the >> end result is the same as using any analyzer and specifying this ID field >> as >> untokenized? The latter approach does not use the analyzer so would that >> be >> more "performant" than the KeywordAnalyzer since there is no call into the >> analyzer's tokenization method? Is either approach acceptable or is there >> one "proper" way of indexing fields where the entire field value requires >> an >> exact match, i.e. untokenized? Thanks! >> >> -Terry >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/KeywordAnalyzer-vs.-Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED-tf3811563.html#a10788664 >> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Steve Rowe Center for Natural Language Processing http://www.cnlp.org/tech/lucene.asp --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
