oh...@cox.net wrote:
Hi Phil,
Well, kind of... but...
Then, why, when I do the search in Luke, do I get the results I cited:
xxxx ==> succeeds
xxxx.yyy ==> fails (no results)
I guess that I've been assuming that the search in Luke is "correct" and I've been using
that to "test my understanding", but maybe that's an invalid assumption?
Luke has some bugs, that's for sure, but not as many as one would think
;) I recommend the following exercise:
* first, check what the "Rewritten" query looks like, in both cases.
This could be enlightening, because depending on the choice of default
field and query analyzer results could differ dramatically.
* then, if a query succeeds in matching one or more documents, open this
document and view its fields using "Reconstruct & edit", especially the
"Tokenized" version of the field. At this point any potential mismatch
in query terms vs. analyzed tokens in the field should become apparent.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
