Koji- I'm not familiar with the benchmarking system, but maybe I'll see
if I can run that benchmark on my test data as a point of comparison -
thanks for the pointer!
-Mike
On 6/20/2011 8:21 PM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
Mike,
FVH used to be faster for large docs. I wrote FVH section for Lucene
Thanks much,
Dean
-Original Message-
From: Denis Bazhenov [mailto:dot...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:27 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to do something like sql in () clause
SQL IN operator behaves as OR operator. So as Occur.SHOULD does. It will match
SQL IN operator behaves as OR operator. So as Occur.SHOULD does. It will match
document only if _one or more_ of the child queries match.
BooleanQuery query = new BooleanQuery();
query.add(new TermQuery(new Term("accountId", "1")), Occur.SHOULD);
query.add(new TermQuery(new Term("accountId", "2")
Mike,
FVH used to be faster for large docs. I wrote FVH section for Lucene in Action
and it said:
In contrib/benchmark (covered in appendix C), there’s an algorithm
file called highlight-vs-vector-highlight.alg that lets you see the difference
between two highlighters in processing time. As of
But the issue is that it MUST be 1, OR MUST be 2 so does that still work?
Also, how do you write that in the query syntax?
Thanks,
Dean
-Original Message-
From: Denis Bazhenov [mailto:dot...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:50 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how
You could use BooleanQuery with Occur.SHOULD quantificator
http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_3/api/core/org/apache/lucene/search/BooleanClause.Occur.html#SHOULD
On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Hiller, Dean x66079 wrote:
> I need to do something like a lucene query with
>
> Where accountId in ( 1,
Swet, thanks,
Dean
-Original Message-
From: Raf [mailto:r.ventag...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:34 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: any documentation on creating a query without query language
You can always "create" your query by hand, using the various
I need to do something like a lucene query with
Where accountId in ( 1, 2, 3, 4)
Is there a way to do that in Lucene Query language?
Thanks,
Dean
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
Our apps use highlighting, and I expect that highlighting is an
expensive operation since it requires processing the text of the
documents, but I ran a test and was surprised just how expensive it is.
I made a test index with three fields: path, modified, and contents. I
made the index using
I see the api in Lucene is new Field(String, String, Store, Index)
Is there anyway to store one of the fields as byte[]? Specifically the value I
am looking up I would like it to be byte[] instead of String. All my other
ones are String anyways.
Thanks,
Dean
This message and any attachments
You can always "create" your query by hand, using the various Query objects.
For example:
BooleanQuery bq = new BooleanQuery();
bq.add(new TermQuery(new Term("account", myAccount)), Occur.MUST);
bq.add(new TermQuery(new Term("strategy", myStrategy)), Occur.MUST);
bq.add(new TermQuery(n
You can simply use a KeywordAnalyzer for your NOT_ANALYZED fields.
This analyzer, in fact, does not modify your input.
Regards,
*Raf*
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM, G.Long wrote:
> Ok, I'll try this.
>
> But will it work if one of the fields has no analyzers assigned ?
>
> For example field1
I would like to skip creating the query using the query language. Our queries
are simple and fixed
Like account = :account and strategy=:strategy and date > :date
So I would prefer maybe not to use a parser in the future sometime and am
really just wondering how.
For now, I am just going to us
Ok, I'll try this.
But will it work if one of the fields has no analyzers assigned ?
For example field1 is associated with a keyword analyzer, field2 with a
standardAnalyzer and field3 has no analyzer because it was indexed as
Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED. Is there something to specify in the
co
See PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper, then form your query like
field1:word1 OR field2:word1
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:40 AM, G.Long wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> I know it is possible to create a query on different fields with different
> analyzers with PerFieldAnalyzer class but is it possible to also
Hi :)
I know it is possible to create a query on different fields with
different analyzers with PerFieldAnalyzer class but is it possible to
also include fields which are not analyzed ?
I want some fields not to be tokenized (an exact reference of an article
for example) and others to be tok
<<< that if the first page took 3 seconds to come up, the second page
took 3 seconds + x seconds>>>
This is really suspicious, what all are you trying to do in your
process? Because I'm starting to guess
that Solr isn't the performance problem here, assuming
reasonably-sized pages (e.g. < thousand
One more note: We hit a big performance problem in that if the first page took
3 seconds to come up, the second page took 3 seconds + x seconds to come
upthis was the major problem we hit. Our client is not a web app but
automated software so the timings on the second page really need to b
The noSQL world flips indexing upside down. Instead of the database doing it
for you, you do it, and this turns out to be a huge advantage in noSQL when I
have huge data. I need to create an index on my activity table account,
security, activityDate columns...one index for each account instead
Hi Erick,
In continuation to my below mails, I have a socket based multithreaded
server that serves in average 1 request per second.
The index size is 31GB and document count is about 22 millions.
The index directories are first divided in 4 directories and then each
subdivided to 21 directories.
re: 20020101 to the end of time.. Use a clause like [2002-01-01 TO *]
About paging... Yes, you have to start all over again for each search. The basic
problem is that you have to score every document each search, the last document
scored might be the highest-scoring document.
But let's back up a
21 matches
Mail list logo
