If only you were using Solr
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DisMaxQParserPlugin#bf_.28Boost_Functions.29
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
> From: Johnbin Wang
> To: java-user@l
Hi,
Can someone pls direct me to an example where I can get help on creating ant
build script for creating lucene index?. It is part of Lucene contrib but I
did not get much idea from the documentation on Lucene site.
Thanks
Saurabh
Hi All,
I am not sure if any one got chance to go over my question (below).
The question was to check if I can modify MoreLikeThis.like() result
using index time boosting.
I have found a work around as there is no easy way to influence MoreLikeThis
result using index time payload value.
The wo
I meant I'm trying for #2 so this should work (got my numbers mixed
up). Thanks again
Bill
On 5/11/11, William Koscho wrote:
> #1 is what I'm trying for, so Ill give setPositionIncrements(false) a
> try. Thanks for everyone's help.
>
> Bill
>
> On 5/11/11, Steven A Rowe wrote:
>> Yes, StopFilte
#1 is what I'm trying for, so Ill give setPositionIncrements(false) a
try. Thanks for everyone's help.
Bill
On 5/11/11, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> Yes, StopFilter.setEnablePositionIncrements(false) will almost certainly get
> higher throughput than inserting PositionFilter. Like PositionFilter, thi
Hi,
I think you forgot to attach the JUnit.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
> I did a test to understand the use of '*'and '?'.
> If I use StandardAnalyzer I have expected results by if a use
> BrazilianAnalyzer I have a mistake result.
> Please, where is my mistake? Junit is
Hi,
I did a test to understand the use of '*'and '?'.
If I use StandardAnalyzer I have expected results by if a use
BrazilianAnalyzer I have a mistake result.
Please, where is my mistake? Junit is at the end.
Paulo Cesar
cities = {"Brasília","Brasilândia","Braslândia", "São Paulo",
"São Roque
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Provalov, Ivan
wrote:
> We are planning to ingest some non-English content into our application. All
> content is OCR'ed and there are a lot of misspellings and garbage terms
> because of this. Each document has one primary language with a some
> exceptions (e.
Yes, StopFilter.setEnablePositionIncrements(false) will almost certainly get
higher throughput than inserting PositionFilter. Like PositionFilter, this
will buy you #2 (create shingles as if stopwords were never there), but not #1
(don't create shingles across stopwords).
> -Original Messa
another idea is to .setEnablePositionIncrements(false) on your stopfilter.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I can think of two possible interpretations of "removing filler tokens":
>
> 1. Don't create shingles across stopwords, e.g. for text "one two three four
Hi Bill,
I can think of two possible interpretations of "removing filler tokens":
1. Don't create shingles across stopwords, e.g. for text "one two three four
five" and stopword "three", bigrams only, you'd get ("one two", "four five"),
instead of the current ("one two", "two _", "_ four", "fou
I'm sure that you should try building one large index and convert to
NumericField wherever you can. I'm convinced that will be faster -
but as ever, the proof will be in the numbers.
On repeated terms, I believe that lucene will search multiple times.
If so, I'd guess it is just something that ha
Ganesh
Nobody is saying that sharding is never a good idea - it just doesn't
seem to be applicable in the case being discussed. On my indexes I
care much more about speed of searching rather than speed of indexing.
The latter typically happens in the background in the dead of night
and within r
Hi Tom,
the more i am getting responses in this thread the more i feel that our
application needs optimization.
350 GB and less than 2 seconds!!! That's much more than my expectation :-)
(in current scenario).
*characteristics of slow queries:*
there are a few reasons for greater search time
14 matches
Mail list logo
