On 12/14/05, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is some specific reason it is not deemed suitable
> to commit, please let me know. It is much harder to use
> DisjunctionMaxQuery without this parser.
Hey Chuck,
I committed DisjunctionMaxQuery after I took the time to understand
- Original Message -
*From:* Miles Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org
*Sent:* 12/14/2005 12:43:04 AM
*Subject:* DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser and DisjunctionMaxQuery
>On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>
>>
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> As i mentioned in the comments for LUCENE-323,
> DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser seems to be more of a demo of what's
> possible with DisjunctionMaxQuery -- not neccessarily a full fledged
> QueryParser. I think that's why it wasn't com
: The DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser would correctly generate a query
: that would find fruit in one of the fields, but would only ensure that
: apples did not appear in one field, not not appear in all the fields,
: which was the behaviour I wanted. Hence negations didn't really work if
: the
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:35 -0800, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : Oh, BTW: I just found the DisjunctionMaxQuery class, recently added it
> : seems. Do you think this query structure could benefit from using it
> : instead of the BooleanQuery?
>
> DisjunctionMaxQuery kicks ass (in my opinion), and It
