Are there any issues with having a bunch of boolean queries and than adding
them to one big boolean queries (making them all required)?
Or should I be looking at Query.combine()?
Thanks,
Luke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Problem searching Field.Keyword field
Kelvin - I respectfully disagree - could you elaborate on why this is
not an appropriate use of Field.Keyword?
If the category is "How To", Field.Text would split this (depending on
the Analyzer) into "how" and "to".
If the user is selecting a category from a drop-down, though, you
shouldn't be using QueryParser on it, but instead aggregating a
TermQuery("category", "How To") into a BooleanQuery with the rest of
it. The rest may be other API created clauses and likely a piece from
QueryParser.
Erik
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Kelvin Tan wrote:
> As I posted previously, Field.Keyword is appropriate in only certain
> situations. For your use-case, I believe Field.Text is more suitable.
>
> k
>
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:02:19 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
>> This may or may not be correct, but I am indexing it as a keyword
>> because I provide a (required) radio button on the add screen for
>> the user to determine which category the document should be
>> assigned. Then in the search, provide a dropdown that can be used
>> in the advanced search so that they can search only for a specific
>> category of documents (like HowTo, Troubleshooting, etc).
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kelvin Tan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,
>> February 08, 2005 9:32 AM To: Lucene Users List
>> Subject: RE: Problem searching Field.Keyword field
>>
>> Mike, is there a reason why you're indexing "category" as keyword
>> not text?
>>
>> k
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 08:26:13 -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>>
>>> Sorry for my lack of understanding, but I am learning! Won't the
>>> query parser still handle this query? My limited understanding
>>> was that the search call provides the 'all' field as default
>>> field for query terms in the case where fields aren't specified.
>>> Using the current code, searches like author:Mike" and
>>> title:Lucene work fine.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Miles Barr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:
>>> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:08 AM To: Lucene Users List Subject:
>>> Re: Problem searching Field.Keyword field
>>>
>>> You're using the query parser with the standard analyser. You
>>> should construct a term query manually instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Miles Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Runtime Collective Ltd.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
