I am trying to use Syns2Index utility to convert the WordNet into a Lucene
index. First I downloaded the latest JDK and Lucene 2.0, but soon realized
that both were too new for compiling Syns2Index.java. Next, got down to
j2sdk1.4.2_13 and Lucene 1.4.3. by deciphering error messages. (I am
Thanks for the instant reply. More specifically i am trying to do is:
1) to show the results which contain the exact query phrase on top followed
by ANDed results followed by the ORed results.
2) introduce new parameter that uses the query phrase to influence the
ranking.
regards
Sajid
Thanks you for your answer.
But, is it possible to group clauses with a not. exemple:
type:product NOT (name:toto OR name:titi) ??
Christophe
Mark Miller a écrit :
Personally, I think of it as not a 'not' operator, but more a 'but
not' or 'and not' operator. Thats not totally the case I
Hello,
I have an application in which we only need to know the total number of
documents matching a query. In this case we do not need any sorting or
scoring or to store any reference to the matching documents. Can you
tell me how to execute such a query with maximum performance?
Thanks
This has been discussed extensively on this thread, so I think you'd get the
fastest answers by searching the mail archive for database, db, etc.
The short answer is it all depends upon what you want to accomplish and the
characteristics of your problem.
Erick
On 11/27/06, Inderjeet Kalra
Yes, I believe that it is entirely possible. You can nest and link
boolean clauses all you want: your example query would be a boolean with
two top level clauses, one required to be there and one required not to
be there. The second top level clause would itself be a boolean query
with two two
i have the same problem here. I have an interest bit field, which i
receive from the applciation backend. I have control over how the docuemtns
are built.
To be specific, the field looks like this:
ID: interest
1 : sport
2 : music
4 : film
8 : clubs
So someone interested in sports and music
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be indexed,
and then it worked as expected. I have never looked
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the cache each time a new document was to be
On 11/27/06, Suman Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The last line [at
org.apache.lucene.index.MultiTermDocs.next(MultiReader.java:349)]
repeats another 1010 times before the program crashes.
I understand that without the actual index or the documents, it's
nearly impossible to narrow down the
Here are the values:
mergeFactor=10
maxMergeDocs=10
minMergeDocs=100
And I see your point. At the time of the crash, I have over 5000
segments. I'll try some conservative number and try to rebuild the
index.
On 11/27/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/27/06, Suman Ghosh
On 11/27/06, Suman Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are the values:
mergeFactor=10
maxMergeDocs=10
minMergeDocs=100
And I see your point. At the time of the crash, I have over 5000
segments. I'll try some conservative number and try to rebuild the
index.
Although I don't see how those
On Monday 27 November 2006 14:30, Hirsch Laurence wrote:
Hello,
I have an application in which we only need to know the total number of
documents matching a query. In this case we do not need any sorting or
scoring or to store any reference to the matching documents. Can you
tell me how
Yonik,
Thanks for the pointer. I'll try the nightly build once the change is committed.
Suman
On 11/27/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/27/06, Suman Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are the values:
mergeFactor=10
maxMergeDocs=10
minMergeDocs=100
And I see your
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a single static analyzer for all my documents,
and the caching analyzer was not working properly. I had to add a
method to clear the
Well, you really have the code already G. From the top...
1 there's no good way to support searching bitfields If you wanted, you
could probably store it as a small integer and then search on it, but that's
waaay too complicated than you want.
2 Add the fields like you have the snippet from,
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 8:57 AM, jm wrote:
I tested this. I use a
Ok. I reverted back to the version without a public clear() method.
Wolfgang.
On Nov 27, 2006, at 12:17 PM, jm wrote:
yes that would be ok for my, as long as I can reuse my child analyzer.
On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Hoschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2006, at 9:57 AM, jm wrote:
On
Stanislav,
On Wednesday 22 November 2006 09:52, Stanislav Jordanov wrote:
Paul,
We are working on delivering the next release by the end of the week so
I have to take care of 2 or 3 issues before I try the nightly build.
I promise to try it and report the results here.
I have made a first
Erick Erickson wrote:
Well, you really have the code already G. From the top...
1 there's no good way to support searching bitfields If you wanted, you
could probably store it as a small integer and then search on it, but
that's
waaay too complicated than you want.
2 Add the fields like you
Mike,
I've not tried it yet, but I think the problem can be reproduced.
However, it'll take a few hours to reach that threshhold since my code
also needs to extract text from some very large PDF documents to store
in the index.
I'll post the pseudo-code of my code tomorrow. Maybe that'll help
21 matches
Mail list logo
