I simplified the program to show this. I actually use a multiterm query
parser and a join query across 2 Lucene Indexes. It's already complicated.
I can understand the logic of parsing the query first (I need that in fact
because I'm using different analyzers for different fields), but I don't
un
tput
class org.apache.lucene.search.TermQuery, sn:1023 4567 8765
Number of results found for '"1023 4567 8765"': 1
class org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanQuery, sn:1023 sn:4567 sn:8765
Number of results found for '1023 4567 8765': 0
--
Regards
Milind
;
> It also seems to support "**" in a quoted phrase to mean one or more
> arbitrary terms. This isn't documented, but seems to work.
>
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -Original Message- From: Milind
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:51 AM
> To: java-user@
its component parts. There are some weird
> side effects to do with term frequencies and phrase-like queries, but it
> would make all these wildcard queries work I think.
>
> -Mike
>
> On 08/27/2014 09:54 AM, Milind wrote:
>
>> I see. This is going to be extremely difficult t
ort "*"?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Milind wrote:
>
> > I see. This is going to be extremely difficult to explain to end users.
> > It doesn't work as they would expect. Some of the tokenizing rules are
> > already somewhat confusing. Their e
, but the standard tokenizer is not being called, so
> the dot remains and this whole term is treated as one term, unlike the
> index analysis.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -Original Message- From: Milind
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:24 PM
> To: java-user
ohnapplesee*
Hits found: 1
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Ralf Heyde wrote:
> Can you Post the Result of the queryparser for the other queries too?
>
> Gesendet von meinem BlackBerry 10-Smartphone.
> Originalnachricht
> Von: Milind
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. August 2014 18:24
>
ss org.apache.lucene.search.PrefixQuery, Name:c0001.devnm00*
Hits found: 0
--
Regards
Milind
Christoph Kaser <
christoph.ka...@iconparc.de> wrote:
> Hello Milind,
>
> if you don't set the field to be tokenized, no analyzer will be used and
> the field's contents will be stored "as-is", i.e. case sensitive.
> It's the analyzer's job to toke
. But it seems that I don't
need to do that. The LowerCaseKeywordAnalyzer works if the field is
tokenized, but not if it's un-tokenized!
How can that be?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Milind wrote:
> It does look like the lowercase is working.
>
> The following code
&
g 9, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Milind wrote:
> I looked at a couple of examples on how to get keyword analyzer to be case
> insensitive but I think I missed something since it's not working for me.
>
> In the code below, I'm indexing text in upper case and searching in lower
> case. Bu
cher = new IndexSearcher(theIndexReader);
TopScoreDocCollector theCollector = TopScoreDocCollector.create(10,
true);
theSearcher.search(theQuery, theCollector);
ScoreDoc[] theHits = theCollector.topDocs().scoreDocs;
System.out.println("Number of results found: " + theHits.length);
}
--
Regards
Milind
Thanks again Steve. It was the version number. I hadn't noticed the
deprecated warning. Changing to use Version.LUCENE_47 fixed the problem.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Milind wrote:
>
> >>> input=esl2.gbr
>
d 4.7 since it seems 4.8 onwards, Lucene is being
compiled against Java 7 and I'm still on Java 6. Hopefully, this will be
a non-issue with PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper. But I just wanted to point that
out.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Milind wrote:
> Brilliant. Thanks!
>
>
e
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Milind wrote:
>
> > Thanks Steve, that helped. I had forgotten about the URL part of the
> > Analyzer since I was using it for the email field. I need to see if it's
> > possible to use different analyzers for different fields. If s
ld and use
StandardAnalyzer for everything else. I'm not sure if that would work
though. Since I'm using the MultiFieldQueryParser and that takes in a
single Analyzer.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> Hi Milind,
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Milind wrote:
>
> &
=[esl2][gbr]
Any insights would be appreciated
--
Regards
Milind
17 matches
Mail list logo
