Hi Dino, I think you'd benefit from reading some FAQ answers, like:
"Why is it important to use the same analyzer type during indexing and search?" <http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#head-0f374b0fe1483c90fe7d6f2c44472d10961ba63c> Also, have a look at the AnalysisParalysis wiki page for some hints: <http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/AnalysisParalysis> On 08/19/2008 at 8:57 AM, Dino Korah wrote: > From the discussion here what I could understand was, if I am using > StandardAnalyzer on TOKENIZED fields, for both Indexing and Querying, > I shouldn't have any problems with cases. If by "shouldn't have problems with cases" you mean "can match case-insensitively", then this is true. > But if I have any UN_TOKENIZED fields there will be problems if I do > not case-normalize them myself before adding them as a field to the > document. Again, assuming that by "case-normalize" you mean "downcase", and that you want case-insensitive matching, and that you use the StandardAnalyzer (or some other downcasing analyzer) at query-time, then this is true. > In my case I have a mixed scenario. I am indexing emails and the email > addresses are indexed UN_TOKENIZED. I do have a second set of custom > tokenized field, which keep the tokens in individual fields > with same name. [...] > Does it mean that where ever I use UN_TOKENIZED, they do not get through > the StandardAnalyzer before getting Indexed, but they do when they are > searched on? This is true. > If that is the case, Do I need to normalise them before adding to > document? If you want case-insensitive matching, then yes, you do need to normalize them before adding them to the document. > I also would like to know if it is better to employ an EmailAnalyzer > that makes a TokenStream out of the given email address, rather > than using a simplistic function that gives me a list of string pieces > and adding them one by one. With searches, would both the approaches > give same result? Yes, both approaches give the same result. When you add string pieces one-by-one, you are adding multiple same-named fields. By contrast, the EmailAnalyzer approach would add a single field, and would allow you to control positions (via Token.setPositionIncrement(): <http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_3_2/api/org/apache/lucene/analysis/Token.html#setPositionIncrement(int)>), e.g. to improve phrase handling. Also, if you make up an EmailAnalyzer, you can use it to search against your tokenized email field, along with other analyzer(s) on other field(s), using the PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper <http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_3_2/api/org/apache/lucene/analysis/PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper.html>. Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
