https://lucene.apache.org/core/6_2_0/join/org/apache/lucene/search/join/ToParentBlockJoinSortField.html
Fits Perfectly!
Thanks for the link!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/BlockJoinQuery-with-sorting-tp4307405p4307672.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users
As it's described in Solr space
http://blog-archive.griddynamics.com/2015/08/scoring-join-party-in-solr-53.html
you can add a function query for price value field in a child query as
SHOULD, then pass ScoreMode into BlockJoinQuery and it will yield scores.
There are two things to mention: I'm not s
Here is an example:
I've got 3 Offerings with such prices:
[Offering1 : { id : 1, price : { value: [10, 30, 20], type : t1 } },
Offering2 : { id : 2, price : { value: [20], type : t2 } },
Offering3 : { id : 3, price : { value: [15, 40], type : t3} }]
Originally, I would like to filter data by a
private reply:
it's not clear what you retrieve and what you want to sort, parents by
matching children or lists of children associated to parents.
PLs respond to the list.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:24 PM, ASKozitsin wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
>
> I'm using 6.3.0 Lucene.
>
> I've got two structures:
You are passing ScoreMode.NONE right now, when you create the
ToParentBlockJoinQuery; have a look at the javadocs for the other
options?
You could normalize all scores by the maxScore, if you must produce a
percentage?
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:31
Hello Mike
Thanks for the reply ,Now we are able to get TopGroups. but still we
are not able to get score .how ever we got matched Parent and child
through following code. We need score for showing in our application
for ranking .
Document childDoc = indexsearcher.doc(group.scoreDocs[0].doc)
You should not use TextField.TYPE_STORED to index your docType field:
that field type runs the analyzer. I'm not sure that matters in your
case, but that's deadly in general. Use StringField instead (it
indexes the provided text as a single token).
Likewise for color, size fields.
Try running y
Hello Michael,
following is the code. This is the Sample which we are trying to get
the the hits.Please Guide us
public void newTry() throws IOException
{
StandardAnalyzer analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer
(Version.LUCENE_41);
/
Hi,
It looks like the mailing list stripped the attachment; can you try
inlining the code into your email (is it brief?).
Also, have a look at the unit-test for ToParentBJQ and compare how it
runs the query with your code?
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at
Hello Michael,
We tried the sample of code but the value of "hits" we are getting
is null. We tried to search on net but no proper sample example given
which can help us to understand. We attached our code with mail
.please it would be great if you can give a look to our code.
Thanks.
On Wed
Hello Michael,
In the example given in your blog in following line there is error
searcher.search(query, c);
whether it should convert in IndexSearcher
there is no explanation given for document addition in blog example ?
Can you please provide helping hand.
Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014
Actually, the blog post should still apply: just insert ToParent to
rename things.
ToChildBlockJoinQuery is the same idea, but it joins in the reverse
direction, so e.g. if your index has CDs (parent docs) and individual
songs on those CDs (child docs), you can take a parent-level
constraint (e.g.
Hello Michael,
Can i get code snippet for this new classes: ToParentBlockJoinQuery,
ToChildBlockJoinQuery
and how to use it.
thanks
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Sorry, BlockJoinQuery was split into two separate classes:
> ToParentBlockJoinQuery, ToChildBlockJoinQ
Sorry, BlockJoinQuery was split into two separate classes:
ToParentBlockJoinQuery, ToChildBlockJoinQuery.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Priyanka Tufchi
wrote:
> Subject: BlockJoinQuery is missing in lucene-4.1.0 .
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.
yes. I need infixsuggester to show suggests on comments only for one
specific postid but otherwise contain the whole posts, but after thinking
about it ,might just use filter on postid?
1. will this be expensive operation, a bit of overkill just for 1 postid.
among 1s
2. i have to make infixs
Sorry, I'm not following what you're trying to do.
It sounds like you want to tweak AnalyzingInfixSuggester to somehow
use BlockJoinQuery based on the comments in your user's posts?
Can you give more of a big picture here?
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at
want to use the infix suggester but instead to create different index for
every postid (which was initial consideration - not very wise one :)) I
want to create one index containing all the information about the postsid
and every comment and for every to suggest matches only for a specific
postid.
but if i want to make this a suggester will be a hard case isnt it?
You have to re-index the parent + all children (and delete the
previous parent + all its children) whenever you want to add a new
child doc.
If you want to delete just children then you can do that w/o
reindexing the full block.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Wed, Aug 14, 20
and can documents cam be added dynamic i.e new comments can be indexed and
added to parent doc? or have to rebuild the index
2013/8/14 Michael McCandless
> Yes.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM, vonPuh fonPuhendorf
> wrote:
> > hi,
Yes.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM, vonPuh fonPuhendorf
wrote:
> hi, can i use BlockJoinQuery to search only relative content i.e a parrent
> will be post id and the children will be all the comments in the
> threads(userids)
>
> and return res
To allow deleting the document block all at once, here is another possibility:
In addDocuments() function, add an internal field, i.e.,
"_num_children_docs_", for the number of children documents. Since the
doc ID of all parent/children documents are consecutive, we can use
this internal field tog
I see. Probably assigning blockID is the most efficient way. Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> IndexWriter doesn't track the blocks ... so you need to something yourself.
>
> One approach is to add a Field, eg blockID, with the same value (maybe
> the id of the p
IndexWriter doesn't track the blocks ... so you need to something yourself.
One approach is to add a Field, eg blockID, with the same value (maybe
the id of the parent doc) to parent and child docs, and then delete by
that.
You may also get away with just deleting the parent or just the
children,
Open an IndexWriter with OpenMode.CREATE, or call
IndexWriter.deleteAll on an already open IndexWriter.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM, developer3459 wrote:
> Is there an quick/easy way to delete the entire collection at once? Im
> looking to delet
Is there an quick/easy way to delete the entire collection at once? Im
looking to delete and replace the entire collection in one fell swoop.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/BlockJoinQuery-Clarification-tp3848728p3998902.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java User
You must delete all children when you delete the parent.
I believe you can delete individual children and leave the parent undeleted.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, developer3459 wrote:
>
> Is there a way to delete a parent doc from the collectio
Is there a way to delete a parent doc from the collection, or delete a child
doc from the collection? If so, will deleting the parent doc of a collection
orphan the associated child docs or will they automatically be deleted as
well?
thanks
-D
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.4
You have to replace all documents in the block (1 parent, 4 children
in your example) to update any of the documents... only updating the
child (or child + parent) will break the join...
There's also query-time joining coming in 3.6.0.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Mar
I don't think there is one yet... it's [still] one of the limitations
I listed here:
http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2012/01/searching-relational-content-with.html
But... if there were one, I don't think it would be user controllable.
I think it's more of an up-front schema thing, eg you'd tell
30 matches
Mail list logo
