[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-664) [PATCH] small fixes to the new scoring.html doc

2006-09-29 Thread Doron Cohen (JIRA)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-664?page=comments#action_12438854 ] Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-664: Hi Grant, For part 1, I am ok with having it after the scoring formula. For part 2, my motivation was to make it more cl

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-664) [PATCH] small fixes to the new scoring.html doc

2006-09-29 Thread Grant Ingersoll (JIRA)
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-664?page=comments#action_12438837 ] Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-664: Hi Doron, Thanks for the updates. I like the content in scoring.xml, although I am inclined to place it after bo

Re: After kill -9 index was corrupt

2006-09-29 Thread Chuck Williams
Hi All, I found this issue. There is no problem in Lucene, and I'd like to leave this thread with that assertion to avoid confusing future archive searcher/readers. The index was actually not corrupt at all. I use ParallelReader and ParallelWriter. A kill -9 can leave the subindexes out of syn

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread Doron Cohen
> I have updated my doc.add() to use Store.YES... So I understand this did not help. > I am currently searching for "test" which makes 'search' = "test*'. Also I > do not remember the exact string for 'searchText' but it did start with > "test" in one occurrence. > I can use the debugger (and s

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread djd0383
I have updated my doc.add() to use Store.YES... >> 'search' is the desired search string >> 'searchText' is the choosen indexing string >> -both these strings are correctly entered >I realized that. I was asking about an example of theactual strings that >demostrates the problem. I am currently

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread Doron Cohen
djd0383 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/09/2006 11:20:37: > This all worked fine in v1.4 when using: > doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns)); The equivalent of 1.4 use doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns)); would be with 2.0: doc1.add(new Field("allText", searchColumns, Store

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread djd0383
Another note: This all worked fine in v1.4 when using: doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns)); doc.add(Field.Keyword(LuceneSearchIndex.ID, item.getId().toString())); and: query = QueryParser.parse(search, fieldToSearch, analyzer); Thanks. Doron Cohen wrote: > > Two quicks things I

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread djd0383
When you say open reader/searcher after closing writer. I am currently creating an instance of these after creating the query while a user is searching. Is this good enough? Indexing/Searching are using StandardAnalyzer() 'search' is the desired search string 'searchText' is the choosen indexi

Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread Doron Cohen
Two quicks things I can think of: - make sure that 'fieldToSearch' == "allText" - make sure writer is closed after all docs added and then open the reader/searcher Otherwise, can you provide more info: - at least one example where it "doesn't work": - 'searchText' - the text of the field added t

Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.

2006-09-29 Thread djd0383
I am in the process of trying to upgrade to v2.0 from v1.4 and am having trouble building my index. For each of the various entries in the database, I am more or less doing the following: doc1.add(new Field("allText",searchText,Store.NO,Index.TOKENIZED)); indexWriter.add(doc1); This seems to bu