+1 from me.
-Yonik
On 1/7/06, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 to Hoss's suggested enhancement to QueryParser.
>
> I'll volunteer to implement this barring any objections in the next
> day or so.
>
> Erik
-
To
+1 to Hoss's suggested enhancement to QueryParser.
I'll volunteer to implement this barring any objections in the next
day or so.
Erik
On Jan 6, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: > Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and
throw in
: > a MatchAllDoc
: > Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and throw in
: > a MatchAllDocsQuery?
: >
: > I guess this would be done in the QueryParser, but one could also make
: > a case for doing it in the BooleanQuery.
if it were going to be done, i would add it to the QueryParser, and not to
On Jan 6, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and throw in
a MatchAllDocsQuery?
I guess this would be done in the QueryParser, but one could also make
a case for doing it in the BooleanQuery.
In a custom (non-generalizable) query par
Thanks.
On 1/6/06, Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 06 January 2006 18:04, Beady Geraghty wrote:
> > I would like to do queries that are negative. I mean a query with
> > only negative terms and phrases. For example, retrieve all
> > documents that do not contain the term "ap
On Friday 06 January 2006 18:04, Beady Geraghty wrote:
> I would like to do queries that are negative. I mean a query with
> only negative terms and phrases. For example, retrieve all
> documents that do not contain the term "apple".
>
> For now, I have a limited set of documents (say, 1) to
On Friday 06 January 2006 20:57, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and throw in
> a MatchAllDocsQuery?
>
> I guess this would be done in the QueryParser, but one could also make
> a case for doing it in the BooleanQuery.
Overriding getBooleanQuery() fr
I thought along the line of dummy:all as well, but for some reason,
I chose bitset. I am not sure if it matters which route to go.
My situation is that for now, I have say 1 documents,
but, maybe I incease that by 100 time or more. I would guess that
half of the documents qualifies, and half
Thank you all for your answer.
On 1/6/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and throw in
> a MatchAllDocsQuery?
>
> I guess this would be done in the QueryParser, but one could also make
> a case for doing it in the BooleanQuery.
>
Should we should detect the case of all negative clauses and throw in
a MatchAllDocsQuery?
I guess this would be done in the QueryParser, but one could also make
a case for doing it in the BooleanQuery.
-Yonik
On 1/6/06, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With Lucene's trunk, there is a M
With Lucene's trunk, there is a MatchAllDocsQuery. You could use
this in a BooleanQuery with your negative-only query.
Another option, if you're at Lucene 1.4.3 is to index the same value
for a dummy field for every document (say like "dummy:all") and use a
TermQuery in a BooleanQuery wit
On Freitag 06 Januar 2006 18:04, Beady Geraghty wrote:
> For now, I have a limited set of documents (say, 1) to index.
> I can create a bitset that represents the search result of hits on
> "apple".
The development version of Lucene contains a MatchAllDocsQuery so you can
create queries (pro
I would like to do queries that are negative. I mean a query with
only negative terms and phrases. For example, retrieve all
documents that do not contain the term "apple".
For now, I have a limited set of documents (say, 1) to index.
I can create a bitset that represents the search result of
13 matches
Mail list logo
