Simple Search Question.

I looked and didn't find anything and wanted to know what the best way might be for getting a unique list of values in a given field? so if I have a field named "category" ( it's a keyword ) and I wanted to get all the unique values for that, how would I go about it? thanks!

Simple search question

Hello, we are quite new to lucene. At first we want to create a simple user search for our web application. My first thought was to map die 'display name' (= firstname + lastname) to a single field (analysed but not stored) and to put the database id of the user to a stored, not analysed field

Re: Simple Search Question.

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:59, Kyong Kwak wrote: > > I looked and didn't find anything and wanted to know what the best way > might be for getting a unique list of values in a given field? > so if I have a field named "category" ( it's a keyword ) and I wanted to > get all the unique values for th

Re: Simple Search Question.

This will help: http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/index/TermEnum.html Otis --- Kyong Kwak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I looked and didn't find anything and wanted to know what the best > way > might be for getting a unique list of values in a given field? > so if I hav

RE: Simple Search Question.

Thanks, works like a charm. -Original Message- From: Paul Elschot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:05 AM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Simple Search Question. On Monday 14 March 2005 19:59, Kyong Kwak wrote: > > I looked and didn't fi

Re: Simple search question

Yes. Correct. It would be good, If User inputs the search string with *. My Idea is to index two fields separately first name and last name. Provide two text boxes with first name and last name. Leave the rest to the User. Regrads Aditya www.findbestopensource.com On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:44 P

Re: Simple search question

No, we don't want to user to write the * itself. And seperate fields for the first and the last name are also not acceptable. Image all the social networks, where you type a part of a name into the textbox, and get all people whose names (first or last) contains one of your searched words. The use

Re: Simple search question

In this case also, You may need to index the fields separately. This will give better control. Have a parser, which splits the terms and applies * to the end. Search using the terms. Regards Aditya www.findbestopensource.com On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Dirk Reske wrote: > No, we don't want

Re: Simple search question

Tokenizing and then passing through the query parser sounds reasonable to me. You could build the query yourself, but that will be a bit more work. You could also combine a non-wildcard search with a wildcard search, boosting the first one. So that "John Doe" would score higher than "Johnny Donc

Re: Simple search question

You might take a look at Ngrams. These can be used to find partial matches without resorting to wildcards, although they may add to your index size... Best Erick On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Dirk Reske wrote: > No, we don't want to user to write the * itself. > And seperate fields for the f

Re: Simple search question

Couldn't one write a custom filter that modified the inbound term semantics before doing the search? Then, wildcard behavior can be added to terms without doing query string splicing. > You might take a look at Ngrams. These can be used to find partial > matches without resorting to wildcards, alt