Re: Finding cityfuzzily but most accurate is most relevant

Hi Marc, So, I guess I'm looking for a near phrase query with wild card. Any suggestions on this? Do you rely on the Lucene Query Syntax or can you build queries via the API? If the latter, take a look at SpanNearQuery and SpanRegexQuery. Here's an article that can get you started on

Re: Time detection

Hi, I am not aware of an existing analyzer that's doing this. There is the UIMA based tool Heideltime that is doing multilingual extraction of temporal expressions (http://dbs.ifi.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php?id=129). It might get you started. Cheers, Rene Am 01.11.2011 11:58, schrieb

Re: reusing the term-frequency count while indexing

Use term boosts? solr^3 rocks^2 apache http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html#Boosting%20a%20Term Am 25.10.2011 11:19, schrieb prasenjit mukherjee: During search time I get the following input ( only for 1 field ) = solr:3 rocks:2 apache:1 . For this I have to create the

Re: AutomatonQuery Caching

This sounds plausible, even if manually cleaning the Java cache has no effect. Probably a JDK/JRE mismatch somewhere, just have to find the spot. Thanks, Rene Am 12.07.2011 19:22, schrieb Robert Muir: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, René Hacklrene.a.ha...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, I am running

Lucene 3.3: Self referring deprecation use insteads in LowerCaseTokenizer

Hi, just noted that the deprecation use ... insteads in LowerCaseTokenizer (Lucene 3.3) refer to themselves instead of the new constructors with (Version...). E.g. *@deprecated*use {@link #LowerCaseTokenizer(Reader)}instead. should be #LowerCaseTokenizer(Version, Reader). Same for the two

Re: Indexing lists of IDs

Hi Kristjan, which Tokenizer and Filters are you using for the ID field? Rene Am 14.04.2010 21:15, schrieb Kristjan Siimson: Hello, I have document for which I'd like to index an array of indexes. For example, there is a product that belongs to categories with IDs 12, 15, 16, 145, 148. I'd

Re: Increase number of available positions?

Hi Steve, I'm not sure what's wrong with the above (have you tried each of the two nested SpanNot clauses independently?), but here's another thing to try: Your query works. And as turns out, if I don't commit the same embarrassing lower case / upper case inconsistency over and over

Re: Increase number of available positions?

Hi, I was looking at SpanNotQuery to see if I could make do without the position increment gaps. A search requirement that's causing me some trouble to implement is when two terms are supposed to be on the same L_2, yet on different L_3's (L_3's are hierarchically below L_2). With the

Re: Increase number of available positions?

Hi Guys, Thanks for the input! I am now going to put in some work to see how things fare. Should I post the question about substituting int with long on lucene-dev again, if need arises? Thanks again, Rene Am 15.03.2010 23:04, schrieb Steven A Rowe: Hi Rene, Have you seen

Re: Deleting documents without deleting them

Hi Daniel, Unless you have only a few documents and a small index, I don't think never calling optimize is going to be a means you should rely upon. What about if you reindexed the documents you are deleting, adding a field excludeFromSearch with the value true? This would imply that either

Re: Deleting documents without deleting them

I cannot comment on the marked-as-deleted documents, but for the approach I outlined: this might impact the scores. I prefer to say 'impact' instead of 'skew', because to me 'skew' would imply that the original scores are some kind of ideal state which is distorted. I don't think this is

Increase number of available positions?

Hello, I am working at a use case that is very demanding regarding the number of token positions. For one special field in the index, I need to represent different hierarchy levels, like this: MyField Level_1 Level_2 Level_3 Please note that I need to do this with Lucene, not a XML search

Re: Increase number of available positions?

Is your entire corpus a single document? Because I'm having trouble imagining a single document where this would be a problem, unless your increment gap is huge. The term positions are relative to a single document... It is getting pretty huge, yes (see below). The term positions are also

Re: Increase number of available positions?

could say Level_2 has to be 65, but I don't now that beforehand of course. Or am I overlooking something here? On 03/15/2010 at 9:59 AM, Rene Hackl-Sommer wrote: Search in MyField: Terms T1 and T2 on Level_2 and T3, T4, and T5 on Level_3, which should both be in the same Level_1. I

Re: Increase number of available positions?

Hi Erick, What about indexing the triplets with a small increment gap between? That is: ... gets indexed as: level1-1/level2-1/level3-1 +gap 100 level1-1/level2-1/level3-2 +gap 100 level1-1/level2-2/level3-3 +gap 100 level1-1/level2-2/level3-4 If I understand this correctly, the field

SpanQueries in Luke

Hi, I would like to submit SpanQueries in Luke. AFAIK this isn't doable out of the box. What would be the way to go? Replace the built-in QueryParser by e.g. the xml-query-parser from the contrib section? Thanks, Rene -

Re: SpanQueries in Luke

Hi Andrzej, Thanks! I'll keep my eyes open for that. FWIW, implementing this by replacing the QueryParser with the CoreParser worked fine. Thanks again, Rene Am 04.03.2010 16:22, schrieb Andrzej Bialecki: On 2010-03-04 14:13, Rene Hackl-Sommer wrote: Hi, I would like to submit