Wouldn't these excluded/filtered documents skew the scores even though they are supposed to be marked as deleted? Don't the idf values used in scoring depend on the entire document set and not just the matching hits for a query?
Thanks, TCK On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Rene Hackl-Sommer <rene.a.ha...@gmx.de>wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Unless you have only a few documents and a small index, I don't think never > calling optimize is going to be a means you should rely upon. > > What about if you reindexed the documents you are deleting, adding a field > <excludeFromSearch> with the value "true"? This would imply that either > > 1) all fields are stored, so you may retrieve them from the original doc > and add them to the new one plus the exclusion field > 2) or if a lot of fields are only indexed you'd need access to the original > source. (With limitations it is also possible to reconstruct a field from > indexed data only, but not generally recommendable) > > During search, just add "NOT excludeFromSearch:true" to the query. > > If you need to keep track of which versions belong together, you may need > to think about how you uniquely identify documents, how this changes between > versions, and if the update dates might be of any help. > > Cheers > Rene > > > Am 16.03.2010 05:20, schrieb Daniel Noll: > > Hi all. >> >> I'm trying to implement a form of document deletion where the previous >> versions are kept around forever ( a primitive form of versioning) but >> excluded from the search results. >> >> I notice that after calling IndexWriter.deleteDocuments, even if you >> close and reopen the index, the documents are still accessible using >> document(int) but are returned from queries, which is exactly the >> behaviour I want. However, if I call optimize() they will obviously >> be obliterated. >> >> My question is: as long as I never call optimize() -- will the deleted >> documents hang around forever, or will a merge due to adding the new >> documents eventually cause them to be removed? >> >> If they will be removed then I need some other way to avoid them being >> returned. I was thinking of actually *not* deleting them, but >> maintaining a giant filter - I could store this filter on disk but >> it's going to be pretty large even if I use a BitSet. :-( Is there >> any other way to go about it? >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
