Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Yes, I believe it is the same. I bet the Explain explanation would help
confirm this.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Yes, I did try is with Luke a little after posting and it is the same
thanks Paul
-
Hi everyone, I need you support with this question:
Assuming that I have some terms, such as: ("A", "B", "C", "D", "E")
How to search documents that contain a number of terms in that list
but do not care what terms are.
For example, any documents that include any 3 terms in the above list are
match
Try BooleanQuery.setMinimumNumberShouldMatch
2010/1/21 Phan The Dai :
> Hi everyone, I need you support with this question:
> Assuming that I have some terms, such as: ("A", "B", "C", "D", "E")
> How to search documents that contain a number of terms in that list
> but do not care what terms are.
Oh, it is nice.
Thank you much!
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Benjamin Heilbrunn wrote:
> Try BooleanQuery.setMinimumNumberShouldMatch
>
> 2010/1/21 Phan The Dai :
> > Hi everyone, I need you support with this question:
> > Assuming that I have some terms, such as: ("A", "B", "C", "D", "E")
>
Hi everyone,
I want to sort my results independent from my query string. Matching
"documents" should be ordered by the number of fields containing a
specific String.
Let's assume my query returns 2 Documents:
Doc1 contains 5 "ID"-fields (1,2,3,4,5)
Doc2 contains 3 "ID"-fields (5,6,7)
I'm mo
Hi,
I'm trying to create a Lucene index via Railo and am getting the above
error.
My code is as follows (and was working fine in a JSP page but doesn't seem
to want to play under Railo, using same version of Lucene 2.3.2 ):
.
.
.
The typos (missing ')' at the end of some statements are not in the original
code).
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Lewis [DAS] [mailto:bryan.le...@dasmail.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2010 14:19
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: No Matching constructor
Hi,
I'm trying to create a L
Seems that CFML handles things a bit differently...
See this thread for a solution taht worked for me:
http://groups.google.com/group/railo/browse_thread/thread/b52954bfe2aa85ea#
Case closed :0)
Bryan.
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Lewis [DAS] [mailto:bryan.le...@dasmail.co.uk]
Sen
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, but if you search for
id:5 id:6 then I think doc2 will be ranked higher, because it contains
both fields.
Or are you saying you want to rank based on the number of id fields in
the document i.e. doc2 better than doc1 because 3 better than 5? If
that
Hi Ian,
you are probably right that doc2 will be ranked higher as it contains
both id-fields. However, I am sure that this is not always the case in
the default TF/IDF-ranking scheme.
As you mentioned in the second part, I could add a new field holding the
number of matching fields. The Prob
Since FieldSortedHitQueue was deprecated in 3.0, I'm converting to the
new FieldValueHitQueue.
The trouble I'm having is coming up with a way to use FieldValueHitQueue
in a Collector so it is decoupled from a TopDocsCollector.
What I'd like to do is have a custom Collector that can add objects
ex
Nope. When it's time to inactivate a RAMDir indexWriter, I get that
directory, close that writer, then clear out the directory. Then after
clearing out the directory, I create a new IW passing in the directory that
was used previously. No, I do not override the LockFactory - not familiar
with
I'm probably not going to work on it right now.
It might be nice, though, to make sure I have the right big-picture
idea of the tag index patch. I can think of two ways to ask it:
1. What's the relationship between the tag index patch and LUCENE-1879
("Parallel incremental indexing", which also h
Chris,
Great questions
TI is for untokenized fields only and so is probably for a
different use case than LUCNE-1879 (which is very cool, does it
work yet?). TI should just handle everything underneath, so one
wouldn't manually worry about it.
The only hard part, or untested performance wise
Yes, that's just a phrase slop, allowing for variable gaps between words.
I *believe* the Surround QP that works with Span family of queries does handle
what you are looking for.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Solr - Lucene - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: T. R. Halvor
> OK; this approach (modifying an already written & possible in-use (by
> an IndexReader) file) would be problematic for Lucene...
If you have N slots, there would have to be N-1 commits + an Nth commit
in progress while reading the "entry-count block" for there to be the
possibility of
a bad rea
16 matches
Mail list logo
