Hi
I am facing problem in searching the word containing forward slash (/).
My index file contains more then one documents.
On searching for the word "U/S" in the claims field I am getting hits.
But the word "U/S" is actually not there in the document.
Below is the code I am using for s
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#head-3558e5121806fb4fce80fc022d889484a9248b71
Have a look at what the StandardTokenizer is doing (inside the
StandardAnalyzer).
On Nov 17, 2007, at 7:46 AM, Shakti_Sareen wrote:
Hi
I am facing problem in searching the word containing forward
I think "U/S" is tokenized to 'U' and 'S'.
Sicne the query parser is using the same analyzer/tokenizer, the
search for "U/S" is actually the same as the phrase query: "U S".
Which explains why it is a hit but not in the index.
-John
On Nov 17, 2007 4:58 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Hi,
I think u may need to use escape function to escape the words which does not
come in searching
Rohit
On 11/17/07, Shakti_Sareen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I am facing problem in searching the word containing forward slash (/).
>
> My index file contains more then one docum
Hi
I am using StandardAnalyser() to index the data.
But I want to do a like search on a word containing Hyphen
For example it want to search a word "soft-wa*"
I am getting no hits for that. It is said that if the hyphen is there in
the word, then we should include that word in the double quotes (
Hi
You can simply create a PrefixQuery. However, if you're using
StandardAnalyzer, and the word is added as Index.TOKENIZED,
sotf-wa will be broken to 'soft' and 'wa'. Therefore
you'll need to add the word as Index.UN_TOKENIZED, or use a different
Analyzer when you index the data (for this field a
can I go ahead.
SHAKTI SAREEN
GE-GDC
STC HYDERABAD
994894
-Original Message-
From: Shai Erera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:25 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: help required urgent!!!
Hi
You can simply create a PrefixQuery. Ho
-Original Message-
> From: Shai Erera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:25 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: help required urgent!!!
>
> Hi
>
> You can simply create a PrefixQuery. However, if you're using
> S
rpose.
On Nov 22, 2007 6:19 PM, mark harwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Re: help required urgent!!!
>
> Yikes!!
>
> I'm guessing that the question was more about how to support this in the
> standard query syntax w
>>Re: help required urgent!!!
Yikes!!
I'm guessing that the question was more about how to support this in the
standard query syntax where there are multiple words.
i.e. http://www.google.com/search?q=lucene+wildcard+in+phrase
This post
Hi
Simply create your own analyzer with JavaCC. See the repository for the
latest StandardAnalyzer.jj file, make sure the Analyzer accepts anything
with a hypen as a single token.
And try not to yell, please. Most of the questions are urgent, there is
no need for emphasis - especially in this
Hi all,
I have a specific string query like "Jakarta:" How do i get that? I am
using standardAnalyzer and it seems as if it is stripping ":" and it is
simply searching for "Jakarta".
I have used WhiteSpaceAnalyzer also and its working fine for ":" but I
think it has some other limitations. The
Hi,
I have put this question as "urgent" because I can notice I don't have
often answers,
If I'm asking the wrong way, please tell me...
Before I delete a document I search it in the index to be sure there is
a hit (via a Term object),
When I find a hit I delete the doc
Hi Everyone,
We have an application built using Lucene 1.9. The app allows incremental
updating to the index while other users are searching the same index. Today,
some search suddenly returns nothing when we know it should return some hits.
This does not happen all the time. Sometimes the sear
Hi Everyone,
We have an application built using Lucene 1.9. The app allows incremental
updating to the index while other users are searching the same index. Today,
some search suddenly returns nothing when we know it should return some hits.
This does not happen all the time. Sometimes the sea
First, I'd ask why you need to search on punctuation. This often leads you
into an overly-complex place. My first suggestion is that you re-think
whether that's desirable. If it's not, just use different analyzer at index
and search time.
If it is desirable, then you probably need to make your ow
: As far as I know, WhiteSpaceAnalyzer does support the field:text format. Try
More specificaly, the bit of syntax field:value ...or more generally
field:"some longer value" is parsed by QueryParser regardless of what
Analyzer you use. QP is what extracts the field name and the colon, and
then
Well, don't label things urgent. Since this forum is is free, you have
no right to demand a quick response.
You'd get better responses if there was some evidence that you
actually tried to find answers to your questions before posting
them. We all have other duties, and taking time out
Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:51 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Urgent] deleteDocuments fails after merging ...
* This message comes from the Internet Network *
Well, don't label things urgent. Since this forum is is free, y
Erick Erickson wrote:
The javadocs point out that this line
* int* nb = mIndexReaderClone.deleteDocuments(urlTerm)
removes*all* documents for a given term. So of course you'll fail
to delete any documents the second time you call
deleteDocuments with the same term.
Isn't the code snippet belo
org
Subject: Re: [Urgent] deleteDocuments fails after merging ...
* This message comes from the Internet Network *
Erick Erickson wrote:
> The javadocs point out that this line
>
> * int* nb = mIndexReaderClone.deleteDocuments(urlTerm)
>
> removes*all* documents for a given
: I just have two IndexSearchers opened now most of the time, which is
: deprecated,
: But I think that's my only choice !
2 searchers is fine ... it's "N" where N is not bound that you want to
avoid.
from what i understand of your requirements, you don't *really* need two
searchers open ... ope
Chris Hostetter wrote:
the only real reason you should really need 2 searchers at a time is if
you are searching other queries in parallel threads at the same time ...
or if you are warming up one new searcher that's "ondeck" while still
serving queries with an older searcher.
Hoss, I hope I mi
: > the only real reason you should really need 2 searchers at a time is if
: > you are searching other queries in parallel threads at the same time ...
: > or if you are warming up one new searcher that's "ondeck" while still
: > serving queries with an older searcher.
:
: Hoss, I hope I misunder
Hello group,
I am running Lucene 1.2 and I have the following error message. I got this
message when performing a search:
Failed to obtain file lock on /tmp/qcop-msg-qpe
I am running Lucene 1.2 on a Sharp Zaurus PDA with embedded Linux.
When I look through the exceptions I have before that I ca
What's the full exception? We don't even know that the exception is
in Lucene from what you've described. So, w/o more info, it will be
pretty hard to help, but if I had to guess, it sounds like you've got
some threading problems, but who knows.
Also, no need to send the exact same email
e.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Urgent Help Please: "Resource temporarily unavailable"
>
>What's the full exception? We don't even know that the exception is
>in Lucene from what you've described. So, w/o more info, it will be
>pretty hard to help, but if I had
On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
Sorry about the double posting. After sending the first email I got
a delivery failure notice from [EMAIL PROTECTED] I resent it
just to be sure.
Unfornately there is no stack trace in the log. The error object was
passed to log4j.error(...),
Hi, Karl,
Therer have been quite some discussions regarding the "too many open files"
problem. From my understanding, it is due to Lucene trying to open multiple
segments at the same time (during search/merging segments), and the
operating system wouldn't allow opening that many file handles.
If
Hello,
I am a beginner in using Lucene.
My files are contains different language (English, Chinese,
Portuguese, Japanese and some Asian languages, non-latin languages).
They always contain in one file.
Therefore, I have to use UTF-8 to save the contents.
I am now developing a web-based search
Hello,
I am a beginner in using Lucene.
My files are contains different language (English, Chinese,
Portuguese, Japanese and some Asian languages, non-latin languages).
They always contain in one file.
Therefore, I have to use UTF-8 to save the contents.
I am now developing a web-based search en
Hi,
I am doing "field:text" kind of search using my own analyzer which behaves
like whitespaceanalyzer. Following are the code snippets for my own
whitespaceanalyzer and whitespacetokenizer.
// WhiteSpaceAnalyzerMaestro.java
package com.hewitt.itk.maestro.support.service.simplesearch;
import
If you use a servlet and a HTML Form to feed queries to the QueryParser
take good care of all configurations around the servlet container. If
you, like me, use tomcat you might have to recode the query into
internal java form (utf-8) before you pass it to lucene.
read this:
http://www.crazysqui
For instance look at http://www.zilverline.org/zilverlineweb/space/faq
Michael
Karl Øie wrote:
If you use a servlet and a HTML Form to feed queries to the
QueryParser take good care of all configurations around the servlet
container. If you, like me, use tomcat you might have to recode the
query
: I have modified the tokenizer class by making it return characters in
: lower case.
there is really no reason to do this ... have your analyzer use the
WhitespaceTokenizer, wrapped in a LowerCaseFilter ... that will illiminate
some of your custom code, and perhaps some of your problems as well.
Hi, experts
I had a program running for 2 days to build an index for around 160 million
text files, and after program ended, I tried searching the index and found
the index was not correctly built, *indexReader.numDocs()* returns 0. I
checked the index directory, it looked good, all the index data
Unfortunately, you can't easily recover from this (except by
reindexing your docs again).
Failing to call IW.commit() or IW.close() means no segments file was written...
It is theoretically possible to reconstruct a segments file by
"listing" all files and figuring out which segments there are,
d
Dear All
How much actually the disk space needed to optimize the index?The
explanation given in documentation seems to be very different with the
practical situation
I have an index file of size 18.6 G and I am going to optimize it.I keep
this index in mobile Hard Disk with capacit
"maureen tanuwidjaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How much actually the disk space needed to optimize the index?The
> explanation given in documentation seems to be very different with the
> practical situation
>
> I have an index file of size 18.6 G and I am going to optimize it.I
Hi Mike..
"One thing that stands out in your listing is: your norms file
(_1ke1.nrm) is enormous compared to all other files. Are you indexing
many tiny docs where each docs has highly variable fields or something?"
Ya I also confuse why this nrm file is trmendous in size.
I am ind
"maureen tanuwidjaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "One thing that stands out in your listing is: your norms file
> (_1ke1.nrm) is enormous compared to all other files. Are you indexing
> many tiny docs where each docs has highly variable fields or
> something?"
>
> Ya I also confuse
Hi mike
"The only simple workaround I can think of is to set maxMergeDocs to
keep all segments "small". But then you may have too many segments
with time. Either that or find a way to reduce the number of unique
fields that you actually need to store."
It is not possible for me to reduce
Oops sorry,mistyping..
I have the searching result in 30 SECONDS to 3 minutes, which is actually
quite unacceptable for the "search engine" I build...Is there any
recommendation on how faster searching could be done?
maureen tanuwidjaja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi mike
"The on
"Michael McCandless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only simple workaround I can think of is to set maxMergeDocs to
> keep all segments "small". But then you may have too many segments
> with time. Either that or find a way to reduce the number of unique
> fields that you actually need to sto
"maureen tanuwidjaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The only simple workaround I can think of is to set maxMergeDocs to
> keep all segments "small". But then you may have too many segments
> with time. Either that or find a way to reduce the number of unique
> fields that you actually need to
Hi Mike,
How to disable/turn off the norm?is it while indexing?
Thanks,
Maureen
-
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
One side-effect of turning off the norms may be that the scoring/ranking will
be different? Do you need to search by each of these many fields? If not, you
probably don't have to index these fields (but store them for retrieval?).
Just a thought.
Xiaocheng
Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ya...I think i will store it in the database so that later it could be used in
scoring/ranking for retrieval...:)
Another thing i would like to see is whether the precision or recall will be
much affaected by this...
Regards,
Maureen
Xiaocheng Luan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:One side
You can store the fields in the index itself if you want, without indexing them
(just flag it as stored/unindexed). I believe storing fields should not incur
the "norms" size problem, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Xiaocheng
maureen tanuwidjaja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ya...I think i
49 matches
Mail list logo
