Thanks for correcting me on this, I had no idea.. Just goes to show
what happens when an amateur gets in the mix .
Best
Erick
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Daniel Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Сергій Карпенко wrote:
>
>> Yes, you are correct - NO_NORMS has nothing to do with tokeniza
I wrote:
What if you need to match a literal wildcard *and* an actual wildcard. :-)
Actually this was a rhetorical question, but there is at least one
answer: use a regex query instead. Regexes do support escaping the
special symbols, so this problem doesn't exist for those.
Daniel
--
Da
Kwon, Ohsang wrote:
Why do you use to WildcardQuery? You are not need to whildcard. (maybe..)
Use term query.
What if you need to match a literal wildcard *and* an actual wildcard. :-)
Daniel
--
Daniel Noll
-
To unsubscribe
Why do you use to WildcardQuery? You are not need to whildcard. (maybe..)
Use term query.
Term term = new Term("field", "Hello w*orld");
Query query1 = new TermQuery(term);
gimme post
-Original Message-
From: Сергій Карпенко [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:20
Сергій Карпенко wrote:
Yes, you are correct - NO_NORMS has nothing to do with tokenization,
thats mean no analyzers used.
Just to avoid this ambiguous, semi-contradicting wording confusing the
hell out of anyone...
NO_NORMS *does* have something to do with tokenisation -- it implies
UN_TOK
Before going down this path I'd really recommend you get a copy of Luke
and look at your index. Depending upon the analyzer you're using, you
may or may not have w*orld indexed. You may have the tokens:
w
orld
with the * dropped completely.
As far as I know, NO_NORMS has nothing to do with tokeni
