I don't use a query parser at all, so that's no issue. I just need a BooleanQuery to realize that it only has negative clauses and do the right thing. Right now I have to include a bogus static field in every single document so that I can use a TermQuery on that bogus field as the left side of a BooleanQuery subtract. Sure, it works, but it ain't pretty...
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:49 AM > To: 'Lucene Users List' > Subject: RE: Problems with prohibited BooleanQueries > > > > From: Scott Ganyo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > How difficult would it be to get BooleanQuery to do a > > standalone NOT, do you > > suppose? That would be very useful in my case. > > It would not be that difficult, but it would make queries > slow. All terms > not containing a term would need to be enumerated. Since > most terms occur > in only a small percentage of the documents, most NOT queries > would return > most documents. > > Scoring would also be strange. I guess you'd give them all a > score of 1.0, > and hope that the query is nested in a more complex query that will > differentiate the scores. But if it's nested, then you could > do it with > BooleanQuery as it stands... > > So, my question to you is: do you actually want lists of all > documents that > do not contain a term, or, rather, do you want to use negation in the > context of other query terms, and are having trouble getting > your query > parser to build BooleanQueries? > > Doug > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
