From: Singh, Divya
Sent: 04 July 2025 14:40
To: d...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Birajdar, Sharad (DI SW PLM LCS APPS ALM R&D7)
Subject: FW: Challenges with Chinese Query Matching and Wildcard Search in
Lucene (StandardAnalyzer / CJKAnalyzer)
From: Thakare, Monika (ext) (DI SW PLM LCS APPS A
I tried to move the API toward this direction (
https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10194) but I got pushed back.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 8:22 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe
wrote:
> Thanks a lot Ignacio,
> This does seem to work. I'm wondering why this is not part of the query
&
Thanks a lot Ignacio,
This does seem to work. I'm wondering why this is not part of the query
processing itself? Are there situations in which someone would not want
this behavior?
Tomas
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:02 AM Ignacio Vera wrote:
> That is actually expected as the query is t
That is actually expected as the query is trying to match the
original point with the encoded point in the index, therefore is not
matching. There are other cases where results are not as expected, for
example if you index the points from a polygon and then you make a polygon
query using that
Hi All,
I just noticed that If I add a document with a LatLonPoint field with a
latitude and longitude, and then I do a query using
"LatLonPoint.newGeometryQuery("location",
ShapeField.QueryRelation.INTERSECTS, new Point(latitude, longitude))" with
the same latitude and long
Hi Abhishek,
Actually softUpdate is about doing an update where the deletion is
performed via a soft delete rather than a hard delete.
To perform doc-value updates, you need to use the updateNumericDocValue or
updateBinaryDocValue APIs.
Note that it doesn't actually update in-place, it needs to
Hello, Lucene community!
I am reaching out to you to seek help with one of the updated APIs.
I have a use case where I need to update the Lucene document's docValue
fields in place, i.e., without creating a new document with every update. I
believe softUpdateDocument should help me achieve this,
This depends on many factors, but in my experience these two are good
starting points:
- Total number of matching docs of the query.
- Number of segments times number of terms being looked up.
This is a simplified model, some queries incur their own costs, e.g. phrase
queries bottleneck on
always have a date range for publication dates to consider.
2. They almost always have a list of source domains to consider
(currently expressed as a query string domain:[this OR that OR ...])
3. They almost always have a user query string
(sometimes omitted to get the overall number
>> I misspoke, for regular search KnnFloatVectorQuery is the Query object
>> before the rewrite. After the
>> rewrite it's AbstractKnnVectorQuery$DocAndScoreQuery
>>
>> And then when Solr asks for the score the same Query object is passed to
>> the rewrite and be
I was able to narrow down to
https://github.com/apache/solr/commit/cfec121bab2ecfc4c06e20a5533596025ae63d98
that causes this issue.
Without that change the bug doesn't repro
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 6:49 PM Varun Thacker wrote:
> I misspoke, for regular search KnnFloatVectorQuery is t
I misspoke, for regular search KnnFloatVectorQuery is the Query object
before the rewrite. After the
rewrite it's AbstractKnnVectorQuery$DocAndScoreQuery
And then when Solr asks for the score the same Query object is passed to
the rewrite and becomes a AbstractKnnVectorQuery$DocAndScore
I'll have to recreate my setup again since I tried re-building solr without
some PRs and it wiped everything out(my mistake!)
I was able to get the query Solr sends for search KnnFloatVectorQuery vs
what it uses for getting the
score {AbstractKnnVectorQuery$DocAndScoreQuery. This might give
I have an index where I can repro it with 100% success. Let me look into
what's causing it and create a Solr Jira
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:11 AM Michael Sokolov wrote:
> I think this might be a better question for solr-user@? EG I don't
> understand how Solr decides which
Hi,
Thank you!
пт, 3 янв. 2025 г. в 14:15, Uwe Schindler :
> Hi,
>
> the expressions query should not be slower. Of course, if you also take
> the compilation into the query time measurement it may be little slower
> due to compilation and optimizing. In general queries s
Hi,
the expressions query should not be slower. Of course, if you also take
the compilation into the query time measurement it may be little slower
due to compilation and optimizing. In general queries should be warmed
before measuring them + expressions should only be compiled once and
k execution
> stats on top of Lucene.
>
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 23:20, Adrien Grand wrote:
>
> > Lucene doesn't expose query metrics, it's up to the application that
> > integrates Lucene to compute and expose metrics that are relevant to
> them.
> >
>
Does lucene provide extensions (utilities)to extract metrics from Lucene
during the request execution? Or applications can only track execution
stats on top of Lucene.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 23:20, Adrien Grand wrote:
> Lucene doesn't expose query metrics, it's up to the app
Lucene doesn't expose query metrics, it's up to the application that
integrates Lucene to compute and expose metrics that are relevant to them.
Le mer. 4 déc. 2024, 00:31, ashwini singh a
écrit :
> Hey everyone,
>
> Does lucene provide any query metrics (perf) ? I am lo
Hey everyone,
Does lucene provide any query metrics (perf) ? I am looking for something
very similar to MongoSB explain() output or Execution metrics for Cosmos
DB?
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Ashwini Singh*
Hi,
Thanks for the answers!
Yes, my task is to store only non-zero values from a sparse vector of large
dimension, where most of the elements are zero.
вт, 3 дек. 2024 г. в 19:17, Mikhail Khludnev :
> Thanks for clarification Michael!
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 1:56 PM Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
Thanks for clarification Michael!
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 1:56 PM Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Sparse is meaning two different things here. In the case you found Mikhail,
> it means not every document has a value for some vector field. I think the
> question here is about very high dimensional vector
Sparse is meaning two different things here. In the case you found Mikhail,
it means not every document has a value for some vector field. I think the
question here is about very high dimensional vectors where most documents
have zeroes in most dimensions of the vector.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2024, 2:01 A
Morning.
I noticed a condition choosing sparse and dense format underneath
https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/6053e1e31378378f6d310a05ea6d7dcdfc45f48b/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene95/OffHeapByteVectorValues.java#L108
perhaps it may achieve your performance requirements.
Hi,
Thanks for the answer!
I think this is similar to my initial implementation, where I built the
query as follows (PyLucene):
def build_query(query):
builder = BooleanQuery.Builder()
for term in torch.nonzero(query):
field_name = to_field_name(term.item())
value = query
BooleanQuery from the terms in the sparse search vector and
use a simple similarity that sums the term frequencies for ranking. As
long as the number of non-zero dimensions in the query is low, this
should be efficient
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 1:17 PM Viacheslav Dobrynin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Th
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
I haven't tried to do that.
However, I do not fully understand how in this case an inverted index will
be constructed for an efficient search by terms (O(1) for each term as a key
)?
пн, 2 дек. 2024 г. в 21:55, Patrick Zhai :
> Hi, have you tried to encode the sparse v
Hi, have you tried to encode the sparse vector yourself using the
BinaryDocValueField? One way I can think of is to encode it as (size,
index_array, value_array) per doc
Intuitively I feel like this should be more efficient than one dimension
per field if your dimension is high enough
Patrick
On
Hi!
I need to index sparse vectors, whereas as I understand it,
KnnFloatVectorField is designed for dense vectors.
Therefore, it seems that this approach will not work.
вс, 1 дек. 2024 г. в 18:36, Mikhail Khludnev :
> Hi,
> May it look like KnnFloatVectorField(... DOT_PRODUCT)
> and KnnFloatVect
Hi,
May it look like KnnFloatVectorField(... DOT_PRODUCT)
and KnnFloatVectorQuery?
Hi!
Thank you for your reply!
I tried the recommendations, and below I gave an example code for
implementing queries. The query with the expression works a little slower,
I think this is due to the need for compilation.
I have one more question, please tell me which type of field is best suited
s in this vector. A score between a query and a document is located
> as a dot product between their vectors.
> To do this, I am building the following documents using PyLucene:
> doc = Document()
> doc.add(StringField("doc_id", str(doc_id), Field.Store.YES))
> doc.add(F
document is encoded into a sparse vector, where the terms are the
positions in this vector. A score between a query and a document is located
as a dot product between their vectors.
To do this, I am building the following documents using PyLucene:
doc = Document()
doc.add(StringField("doc_id&
m Lucene9.7 to Lucene9.11. During the migration,
> we noticed that the Lucene9.11 has a longer warm up time for vector
> queries. The warm up time means: when the index just finishes building, the
> query time is high for the first few minutes.
>
> The following figure shows the issue.
Dear users,
We recently migrated from Lucene9.7 to Lucene9.11. During the migration, we
noticed that the Lucene9.11 has a longer warm up time for vector queries.
The warm up time means: when the index just finishes building, the query
time is high for the first few minutes.
The following figure
I think this might be a better question for solr-user@? EG I don't
understand how Solr decides which Query to send to populateScores --
is it the same one that was used to generate the matches in topDocs?
It seems as if it should be, but then this error shouldn't happen ...
I wonder
res(TopFieldCollector.java:478)
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Doc id 48567944 doesn't match the query
at
org.apache.lucene.search.TopFieldCollector.populateScores(TopFieldCollector.java:478)
~[?:?]
at
org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.populateScoresIfNeeded(SolrIndexSearcher.j
.
Thanks
T
From: Ralf Heyde
Sent: Sunday, 6 October 2024 19:27
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: priority of query results with text alternates
Hey,
In case I have such an issue, i usually tend to use more than one field with
different analyzer setups and weight
Hey,In case I have such an issue, i usually tend to use more than one field with different analyzer setups and weight/multiply score them individually for each field (index / query).BoostQuery (Lucene 9.11.0 core API)lucene.apache.orgThat may solve it. CheersVon meinem Telefon gesendet, etwaige
eplicate them so that the token
stream output by the analyzer contains both
[app.] [server-] [file_] [name]
and
[app] [server] [file] [name]
with all the correct offsets.
The same analyzer is applied both to the indexed content and to the search
terms.
This w
I've got a problem with a query running against Lucene 7.3 where the
boolean AND is not being applied.
The fields involved are:
1. _missing_, which contains a token for each field missing in the document
2. phoneNationalNumberQueryNgrams, which contains a phone number. The index
analyz
Hello,
I'm exploring some personalization to our sort orders. If I have an
original query q which is mostly just a set of term filters, and I want to
sort those by distance between some float vector on the document and a
supplied user vector. I only see one way to do this. I would create
Hello.
What if you examine parsed query via debugger or just print
query.toString() for both and compare?
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 1:42 PM Saha, Rajib
wrote:
> Hi Experts,
>
>
>
> As per the definition in
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html
>
&
d 'NOT' in query string stands for same reason theoretically.
[cid:image001.png@01DA9FCF.A22DAD00]
[cid:image002.png@01DA9FD0.1DB4C0D0]
But, in practical, is there any difference?
Why I am asking the question. In our product, we have got an incident
related to different result set f
Do I mistake or “ “ makes an OR if there’s no other?
On 6 May 2024, at 12:41, Saha, Rajib wrote:
Hi Experts,
As per the definition in
https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html
'-' and 'NOT' in query string stands for same reason theoretically.
Hi Experts,
As per the definition in
https://lucene.apache.org/core/2_9_4/queryparsersyntax.html
'-' and 'NOT' in query string stands for same reason theoretically.
[cid:image001.png@01DA9FCF.A22DAD00]
[cid:image002.png@01DA9FD0.1DB4C0D0]
But, in practical, is there any d
Thanks Adrien!
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 9:49 AM Adrien Grand wrote:
> You are correct, query rewriting is not affected by the use of search vs.
> searchAfter.
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:37 PM Puneeth Bikkumanla
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Sorry I should
You are correct, query rewriting is not affected by the use of search vs.
searchAfter.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:37 PM Puneeth Bikkumanla
wrote:
> Hello,
> Sorry I should have clarified what I meant by “optimized”. I am familiar
> with the collector/comparators using the “after” doc
Hello,
Sorry I should have clarified what I meant by “optimized”. I am familiar
with the collector/comparators using the “after” doc to filter out
documents but I specifically was talking about the query rewriting phase.
Is the query rewritten differently in search vs searchAfter? Looking at the
:
> Hello,
> I was wondering if a user-defined Query is optimized the same way in both
> search/searchAfter provided the index stays the same (no CRUD takes place).
>
> In searchAfter we pass in an "after" doc so I was wondering if that changes
> how a query is optimized at all.
Hello,
I was wondering if a user-defined Query is optimized the same way in both
search/searchAfter provided the index stays the same (no CRUD takes place).
In searchAfter we pass in an "after" doc so I was wondering if that changes
how a query is optimized at all. By looking at the
Hello Igor,
Accessing a potential match during scoring is problematic. Piggibacking on
wrapped boolean query is not an option because when a certain docId is
collected matching legs might reside on previous or next docID.
You can check these for the inspiration
https://lucene.apache.org/core/9_0_0
TopDocs topDocs = this.searcher.search(query, maxResults);
> Weight weight =
> query.rewrite(this.searcher.getIndexReader()).createWeight(this.searcher,
> ScoreMode.TOP_DOCS, 1.0f);
> for (ScoreDoc scoreDoc : topDocs.scoreDocs) {
> Matches matches =
> weight.matches(this.searche
Hi Igor,
I have similar situation and have written the following code:
TopDocs topDocs = this.searcher.search(query, maxResults);
Weight weight =
query.rewrite(this.searcher.getIndexReader()).createWeight(this.searcher,
ScoreMode.TOP_DOCS, 1.0f);
for (ScoreDoc scoreDoc : topDocs.scoreDocs
I'm writing custom lucene query which is basically a wrapper around boolean
query with many should clauses.
I want to access this boolean query's matched terms, and then either filter
out this document depending on external statistics on those terms or
proceed with this document without
less
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:26 PM Yuan Xiao wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> I am a developer that work for Amazon Product Search. Recently I have
> experienced a use scenario that I altered the IndexSearcher’s default query
> cache policy but so
Hello community,
I am a developer that work for Amazon Product Search. Recently I have
experienced a use scenario that I altered the IndexSearcher’s default query
cache policy but some of our unit tests that extended to LuceneTestCase failed.
It take me some time to figure it out
Can I simplify this bit of query boosting?
You might also want to have a look at FeatureField. This can be used to
associate a score with a particular term.
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:13 PM Hrvoje Lončar wrote:
>
> I had a situation when i wanted to sort a list of articles based on
> the
le having a photo, description,
> ingredients should perform better comparing to one having only name and
> photo.
> For that purpose I created a numeric field that holds calculated value
> named completeness. Later when executing a query, this number is used as a
> sort modifi
named completeness. Later when executing a query, this number is used as a
sort modifier - in my case by using reverse order.
My project is based on Hibernate Search, so I guess it's not that I can put
here a code snippet. This numeric value does not have to be 1st sort
modifier. First you pu
process is here:
// have IndexReader reader, IndexSearcher searcher, Analyzer analyzer,
String userQuery
QueryParser parser = new QueryParser( "content", analyzer );
parser.setDefaultOperator( QueryParserBase.AND_OPERATOR );
BooleanQuery query = new BooleanQuery.
Thank you David, very useful
cheers
T
-Original Message-
From: Dawid Weiss
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:17 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting query results, my method is too crude, but how to
improve it?
You can use two different queries - the query is
You can use two different queries - the query is just used as a source of
information on what to highlight (it can even be completely different and
unrelated to the query that retrieved the documents).
Separately, unified highlighter is great but you may also try the matches
API - I found it to
Well I don't know; I suppose that's part of my question.
It's not immediately obvious to me that the "query" in these two lines:
Highlighter highlighter = new Highlighter( htmlFormatter, new QueryScorer(
query ));
TopDocs results = searcher.search( query, max );
Hello,
Maybe I'm missing some point. But, can you highlight another query than one
you search for?
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 5:07 PM Trevor Nicholls
wrote:
> Sorry I apologize for this being a bit long and for explaining the problem
> at the very bottom after all the background,
d the index has
stored several fields per document: category, volume, title, text, etc.
Title and text are tokenised and stored, all other fields are just indexed.
When searching the index I am using the standard queryparser, and a typical
query might look like
"(title:graph AND titl
Hi ,
I posted my question here also would link it to the list if we have an answer,
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74114422/suggestfield-in-lucene-using-onheap-when-searching
. Is there a way to query using suggestsearcher an off heap suggest field.
When I tried it always gives out of
twice for the
> same segment, which is a costly operation.
>
> 2. The cost is computed in order to know whether the top-level query is
> likely to consume a large-enough portion of the matches of the query that
> we are considering caching so that caching this query wouldn't hu
sorted by
> numeric field can leverage point index structures to only look at a small
> subset of the matching docs. Yet caching a query requires consuming all its
> matches, so it could significantly hurt latencies. It's important to not
> cache all queries to preserve the benef
1. I believe that this would require pulling a ScorerSupplier twice for the
same segment, which is a costly operation.
2. The cost is computed in order to know whether the top-level query is
likely to consume a large-enough portion of the matches of the query that
we are considering caching so
Thanks for the deep-dive Shradha. Thank you Adrien for the additional questions
and answers.
I had a couple of questions, when looking around the cache code.
1. The `QueryCachingPolicy` [1] makes decisions based on `Query`. Why not use
`Weight`?
The `scorerSupplier` [2] in the `LRUQueryCache
edit distance more generally into
> > > the per-term score, although it does seem like that would be something
> > > people would generally expect.
> >
> > Actually it does this:
> >
> > * By default FuzzyQuery uses a rewrite method that expands all
d be something
> > people would generally expect.
>
> Actually it does this:
>
> * By default FuzzyQuery uses a rewrite method that expands all terms
> as should clauses into a boolean query:
> MultiTermQuery.TopTermsBlendedFreqScoringRewrite(maxExpansions)
>
meric field can leverage point index structures to only look at a small
subset of the matching docs. Yet caching a query requires consuming all its
matches, so it could significantly hurt latencies. It's important to not
cache all queries to preserve the benefit of Lucene's filtering and
ore, although it does seem like that would be something
> > people would generally expect.
>
> Actually it does this:
>
> * By default FuzzyQuery uses a rewrite method that expands all terms
> as should clauses into a boolean query:
> MultiTermQuery.TopTermsBl
ault FuzzyQuery uses a rewrite method that expands all terms
as should clauses into a boolean query:
MultiTermQuery.TopTermsBlendedFreqScoringRewrite(maxExpansions)
* TopTermsReqrite basically keeps track of a "boost" factor for each
term and sorts the "best" terms in
The problem is that the query combines the native termquery score (which
depends on length of document and term's statistic). The edit distance
is also multiplied in. When the difference in term statistics is too
large, the edit distance no longer matters. This is perfectly fine and
enerally expect. So maybe FuzzyQuery should somehow do
that? But without changing it, you could also use a query that does it
explicitly; if you get a term "foo", you could maybe search for "foo
OR foo~" ?
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 4:14 PM Mike Drob wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
&g
Hi folks,
I'm working with some fuzzy queries and trying my best to understand what
is the expected behaviour of the searcher. I'm not sure if this is a
similarity bug or an incorrect usage on my end.
The problem is when I do a fuzzy search for a term "spark~" then instead of
matching documents w
Hello!
I work at Amazon Product Search and I’ve recently been looking into
understanding how Lucene’s LRU Query Cache works. I’ve written up a summary of
my understanding here. (Also attached as a markdown file with this email)
Will really appreciate feedback/improvements/corrections for my
Many of us already answered in the dev mailing list.
Uwe
Am 25.06.2022 um 05:19 schrieb Yichen Sun:
-- 转发的邮件 -
发件人： Yichen Sun
日期：2022年6月25日 周六11:14
主题：Finding out which fields matched the query
收件人： , , <
java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Hello!
I’m a MSCS student from
cently I try to
> output matched fields by one query. For example, for one document, there are
> 10 fields and 2 of them match the query. I want to get the name of these
> fields.
>
> I have tried using explain() method and getting description then regex.
> However it cost so muc
-- 转发的邮件 -
发件人： Yichen Sun
日期：2022年6月25日 周六11:14
主题：Finding out which fields matched the query
收件人： , , <
java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Hello!
I’m a MSCS student from BU and learning to use Lucene. Recently I try to
output matched fields by one query. For example, f
Hello!
I’m a MSCS student from BU and learning to use Lucene. Recently I try to
output matched fields by one query. For example, for one document, there
are 10 fields and 2 of them match the query. I want to get the name of
these fields.
I have tried using explain() method and getting
Let me clarify:
Example query: "(author:Patrick author:Michael) && type:pdf"
Example result: 2 items: Doc1 with authors "Patrick, Adalberto" and Doc2
with authors "Patrick, Michael, Elias"
I want to show the 2 items, but when I show the authors, I only wa
How to test if a value in a multi-value field matches a specific query?
Example of the problem:
I've created a query to return all documents of some specific authors. The
authors field contains multi-value sorted set.
When showing the result, I want to show only the name of the authors
spec
Maybe I misunderstand the problem, but why don't you decouple showing
the results from the results of the query?
Am 23.06.22 um 14:03 schrieb Patrick Bernardina:
How to test if a value in a multi-value field matches a specific query?
Example of the problem:
I've created a query to
How to test if a value in a multi-value field matches a specific query?
Example of the problem:
I've created a query to return all documents of some specific authors. The
authors field contains multi-value sorted set.
When showing the result, I want to show only the name of the authors
spec
Hi
I have one use case in relational tables as many to many relationship.
Can block join document be indexed in similar fashion?
like: parent can have many children & children could also have many parents
if possible, could you please share document link how to index & query
using block
Thanks a lot for your inputs Michael. I will check about FunctionQuery.
Thanks again :-)
--
Kumaran R
Chennai, India
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 9:22 PM Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do. Maybe you
> want to match a document having a computed value?
Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do. Maybe you
want to match a document having a computed value? This is going to be
potentially costly, potentially requiring post-filtering of all hits
matching for other reasons. I think there is a
FunctionQuery/FunctionRangeQuery that might h
Thank a lot Erik, I didn't thought about changing the index, only about the
query. I will explore that route.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, 22:53 Erik Hatcher, wrote:
> A comparable alternative would be to use the edge ngram filter to index
> prefixes instead.
>
> Erik
>
>
.
> I am using the
> `org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic.MultiFieldQueryParser` which works
> very well so far.
>
> However I would like to automatically use the prefix notation (`*`) for all
> terms in the query, instead of searching for exact terms, so the humans
> entering the queries don
Hello,
I am using Apache Lucene 8.9.0 to parse queries that are entered by humans.
I am using the
`org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic.MultiFieldQueryParser` which works
very well so far.
However I would like to automatically use the prefix notation (`*`) for all
terms in the query, instead of
Hi Michael, Thanks for the response.
Based on my understanding, we can use the expressions module in lucene to
reorder search results using custom score calculations based on expression
using stored fields.
But i am not sure how to do the same for lucene document hits(doc hits
matching 2 USD with
Have you looked at the expressions module? It provides support for
user-defined computation using values from the index based on a simple
expression language. It might prove useful to you if the exchange rate
needs to be tracked very dynamically.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:15 PM Kumaran Ramasubraman
I am having one use case regarding currency based search. I want to get any
suggestions or pointers..
For example,
Assume,
1USD = 75 INR
1USD = 42190 IRR
similarly, we have support for 100 currencies as of now.
Record1 created with PRICE 150 INR & EXCHANGE_RATE 75 for USD
Record2 created with PRI
030")
>doc.add(LongField('xdate', xdate, Field.Store.YES)) # stored and not
>analyzed
>
>Query:
>
>query = NumericRangeQuery.newLongRange("xdate", long("2019010100"),
>long("20190101115959"), True, True)
>
>I am getting the re
Hi all,
Using: python 2.7.14, pylucene 4.10.0
Index:
xdate = long("20190101183030")
doc.add(LongField('xdate', xdate, Field.Store.YES)) # stored and not
analyzed
Query:
query = NumericRangeQuery.newLongRange("xdate", long("2019010100"),
long(&quo
Hello,
I am using Apache Lucene 8.9.0 to parse queries that are entered by humans.
I am using the
`org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic.MultiFieldQueryParser` which works
very well so far.
However I would like to automatically use the prefix notation (`*`) for all
terms in the query, instead of
1 - 100 of 3151 matches
Mail list logo
