Karsten, Thanks for the feedback. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind not using the "XXXX" prefix (do you have a link possibly?). But I see what you are getting at with the additional field. I'll give it a try. Thanks for the help.
regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: Karsten F. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:45 AM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Testing for field existence Hi Bill, you should not use prefix-query (XXXX*), because in first step lucene would generate a list of all terms in this field, and than search for all this terms. Which is senceless. I would suggest to insert a new field "myFields" which contains as value the names of all fields for this document. So instead of +foo:XXXX* you would search for +myFields:foo This would be very fast. Best regards Karsten Bill.Chesky wrote: > > Hello, > > I am creating fields for documents like this: > > > > String name = ... > > String value = ... > > doc.add(new Field(name, value, Field.Store.NO, > Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED)); > ... > > One thing I tried is to change my field creation statement like this: > > > doc.add(new Field(name, "XXXX" + value, Field.Store.NO, > Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED)); > > > then do a query like this: > > > +foo:XXXX* > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Testing-for-field-existence-tp19032939p19034359.ht ml Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
