Hi List,
I have a situation similar to indexing a mailing list, with each mail
indexed as a Doc. Mails from a same thread share a same thread ID, which is
indexed in a separate field. Now I want to search through all the mails
using some keywords, and list all the unique thread IDs which I can pas
llowing this manner and post the results.
>
> -- j
>
> : Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:22:49 -0700
> > : From: Jeff Rodenburg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : Reply-To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > : To: Chris Hostetter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> &
uals() then there's your problem.
Will do the step-through following this manner and post the results.
-- j
: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:22:49 -0700
> : From: Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : Reply-To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : To: Chris Hoste
your problem.
: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:22:49 -0700
: From: Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Cc: [email protected]
: Subject: Re: Hits issue or custom filter issue?
:
:
AIL PROTECTED]
: To: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Cc: [email protected]
: Subject: Re: Hits issue or custom filter issue?
:
: Might be the same issue, haven't been able to determine during a
: step-through on the code exec.
: You're right, no need to add a new Filtered
Might be the same issue, haven't been able to determine during a
step-through on the code exec.
You're right, no need to add a new FilteredQuery to the statement, just a
search on combinedQuery with a new myCustomFilter.
Unfortunately, no joy; same response.
-- j
On 9/13/05, Chris Hostetter <[E
: Hits h1 = oMultiSearcher.Search(new FilteredQuery(combinedQuery, new
: myCustomFilter(1)));
: Hits h2 = oMultiSearcher.Search(new FilteredQuery(combinedQuery, new
: myCustomFilter(2)));
...do you get the same results if you use...
Hits h1 = oMultiSearcher.search(combinedQuery, myCustomFilte
I'm encountering some unexpected behavior teeing up multiple Hits objects
from a searcher, and I think I'm missing something obvious. Hoping a second
pair of eyes might see what I'm missing.
Here's my code sequence:
// Some liberties taken in the code regarding names, etc.
// v1.4.3 codebase
Bo
