boosting querys closer to the current date

Providing that I have indexed documents with the following fields: Keyword: lastmodifiedDate Unstored: contents And that I run a simple query only using just the contents field. Is there anyway to change the way Lucene presents results, so documents with a high score and lastmodifiedDa

Lucene & Transactional semantics

Hi all, I am interested in developing a system which will use Lucene to implement the search functionality. A key characteristic of this system is that certain information about the indexed documents will be editable by the user administrators. For instance, the user administrators can manually

Re: boosting querys closer to the current date

On 16 Nov 2005, at 04:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Providing that I have indexed documents with the following fields: Keyword: lastmodifiedDate Unstored: contents And that I run a simple query only using just the contents field. Is there anyway to change the way Lucene presents results,

Re: RAMDirectory and Hibernate

Hi, I have drawn up a diagram for the architecture of the index/search system I am building. It will use JMS Queues to provide SEDA like capability. Basically, a document change notification comes into the system, this is serviced by an indexing node that builds a new index based on it, which is s

Re: Searching Special Characters

As we have a very large index, I'm interested in knowing what others do, before I commit to doing the below. If I do go down that route, I assume I use a StandardAnalyzer once again? In a Test, I did the following... public class TestLuceneIndexCreateAndIndex extends TestCase { public void i

Re: boosting querys closer to the current date

: If you need to boost without reindexing, I'm not quite sure what the : best solution is - perhaps a custom Query subclass that can do this : based on the current date? Take a look at my response to this exact same question from yesterday... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-

Optimize vs non optimized index

Howdy all, have a quick question for you... I am seeing quite a difference between optimized index and one that is not optimized. I have read a few papers that say that it shouldn't matter, but I am seeing 7X speed or better when the index is optimized. Is it possible that I am creating the origi

Re: Optimize vs non optimized index

Do you have any deletions in the non-optimized version of the index? If so, a bug was fixed recently that made for some very slow queries: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-454 You could also try a smaller mergeFactor, which would slow indexing, but decrease the number of segments, and h

Issues while doing ant on lucene source

Hi Folks. I downloaded the Lucene and tried to do an ant. It initially gave me the following error: BUILD FAILED file:/home/parikpol/downloads/lucene-1.4.3/build.xml:11: Unexpected element "tstamp" I commented out the tstamp tag from build.xml, and now it gives me the following errors: compile-

Filtering on a SpanQuery without losing spans

Hi All, I'm using a bunch of SpanNearQueries combined in a SpanOrQuery to do a set of searches matches a phrase with a prefix search at the end. I.e. "phrase with prefix s*" kind of thing that matches "phrase with prefix search" and "phrase with prefix string". It works great and lets me quickly

Re: Issues while doing ant on lucene source

Parikshit, TStamp (timestamp) is a core Ant task - so it should be recognized. What version of Ant do you have? Greg On 11/16/05, Pol, Parikshit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Folks. > I downloaded the Lucene and tried to do an ant. It initially gave me the > following error: > BUILD FAILED >

RE: Issues while doing ant on lucene source

Ant 1.5.2-23. Maybe I will try upgrading it too 1.6. -Parik -Original Message- From: Greg K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:43 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Issues while doing ant on lucene source Parikshit, TStamp (timestamp) is a co

Re: Filtering on a SpanQuery without losing spans

Greg, On Wednesday 16 November 2005 21:19, Greg K wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm using a bunch of SpanNearQueries combined in a SpanOrQuery to do a set > of searches matches a phrase with a prefix search at the end. I.e. > > "phrase with prefix s*" kind of thing that matches "phrase with prefix > sear

Re: Memory Usage

Daniel Noll wrote: Timings were obtained by performing the same search 1,000 times and averaging the total time. This was then performed five times in a row to get the range that's displayed below. Memory usage was obtained using a 20-second sleep after loading the index, and then using the Win

Re: Optimize vs non optimized index

Are you using the compound index format (do you have .cfs files)? I think using the non-compound format might take less space (2.5G less in your case) when optimizing, since it doesn't have to do that last step of copying all the index files into the .cfs file. Also Lucene 1.9 (available from sub

RE: Issues while doing ant on lucene source

I had an old installation of ant causing the problems. I had to remove the /use/share/ant folder to make it working. Thanks for your input. -Original Message- From: Greg K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:43 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re:

RE: Optimize vs non optimized index

Thanks for the advice Yonik.. I do have deletions in my 1.4.3 index. I downloaded the lucene-1.9-rc1-dev.jar file to give it a go and after upgrading a few of the methods from the deprecated methods, I keep getting this error: class "org.apache.lucene.document.Field$Store"'s signer information does

Re: Optimize vs non optimized index

That jar may be out of date... I would grab the source and do a build. It's easy if you have a command line svn client and ant installed. svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk . ant -Yonik Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 On 11/16/05, Aigner, Thomas <

Re: Filtering on a SpanQuery without losing spans

Greg K wrote: Now, however, I'd like to be able restrict the search to certain documents in the index, so I don't have to stream through a couple of thousand spans to produce the 10 excerpts on a subset of the documents. I've tried added a term to the SpanNearQueries that targets a keyword field

Re: Memory Usage

Doug Cutting wrote: Daniel Noll wrote: Timings were obtained by performing the same search 1,000 times and averaging the total time. This was then performed five times in a row to get the range that's displayed below. Memory usage was obtained using a 20-second sleep after loading the index,

Re: Filtering on a SpanQuery without losing spans

Yow! - that's very helpful. Thanks much! Question about an apparent assumption in your example - is it true that spans always stream in increasing document order? Is that a guarantee or just a fact about the currently implementation? Greg On 11/16/05, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Re: Issues while doing ant on lucene source

On 16 Nov 2005, at 15:45, Pol, Parikshit wrote: Ant 1.5.2-23. Maybe I will try upgrading it too 1.6. Yes, you must. Lucene's build requires Ant 1.6.x. I recommend you get the latest release version of Ant. Ant 1.5.x required most tasks (including ) to be within a , but Ant 1.6 loosened

Re: Filtering on a SpanQuery without losing spans

On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:33, Greg K wrote: > Yow! - that's very helpful. Thanks much! > > Question about an apparent assumption in your example - is it true that > spans always stream in increasing document order? Is that a guarantee or > just a fact about the currently implementation? Spa