On Friday 05 December 2003 10:45, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> > Also, shouldn't there be at least 3 methods that take Readers; one for
> > Text-like handling, another for UnStored, and last for UnIndexed.
>
> How do you store the contents of a Reader? You'd have to double-buffer
Hi
I am starting to get an error about a write.lock in lucene when creating an index in
an empty directory. It used to work fine before but now it started to occur and as far
as I know I didn't touch anything. Printing out the stack trace from the excpetion
thrown I get the following :
java.io
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:28:54PM -0500, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 04:28 PM, Dror Matalon wrote:
> >Then I'm out of ideas. The next thing is for you to post your search
> >code so we can see why it's not searching the field.
>
> Giving up so easily, Dror?! :))
You'
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 04:28 PM, Dror Matalon wrote:
Then I'm out of ideas. The next thing is for you to post your search
code so we can see why it's not searching the field.
Giving up so easily, Dror?! :))
The problem is, when using any type of QueryParser with a Keyword
field, you h
Then I'm out of ideas. The next thing is for you to post your search
code so we can see why it's not searching the field.
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:34:38PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
> Yes it is in the list of arrays that I want searched.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dror Matalon [
I guess you mean "Modern Information Retrieval" ... I would be a little bit
careful since this book has theoretical glasses on. It might look more
difficult than expected. However I would like to discuss this further. How could it
be archived to get the values your are writing about? Any first idea
Yes it is in the list of arrays that I want searched.
-Original Message-
From: Dror Matalon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:32 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:14:08PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
> What d
Mike,
Boy, I said it so badly and yet you understood :-).
Dror
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:31:15PM -0500, Michael Giles wrote:
> Tracy,
>
> I believe what Dror was referring to was the call to
> MultiFieldQueryParser.parse(). The second argument to that call is a
> String[] of field names on
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:14:08PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
> What do you mean 'add' in MultiFieldQueryParser? I am using all the
> fields
Sorry, that was wrong. What I meant to say is are you adding the field
to the array of fields that need to be searched?
You need to use a MultiFieldQ
Tracy,
I believe what Dror was referring to was the call to
MultiFieldQueryParser.parse(). The second argument to that call is a
String[] of field names on which to execute the query. If the field that
contains "AR345" isn't listed in that array, you will not get any results.
-Mike
At 03:14
What do you mean 'add' in MultiFieldQueryParser? I am using all the
fields
When I index it does
add (Field.Keyword(..,..))
But I don't want the user to have to type ID: It would be
nice to just type ID Number. On your site if you just put: 11183 in the
search box there are no results.
wel
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:45:34PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
> Maybe we are having some communication issues.
>
> At any rate, I did index it as a KEYWORD and when displaying used the
> TermQuery.
>
> The only problem with this though is by storing the ID (i.e. AR345) as a
> Keyword, if I se
Thanks, but using it as a Keyword, it will not get returned with my
search results when I use MultiFieldQueryParser.
If I could I would use just parse(query) but that is not a static
method, only parse(query,field,analyzer) is... So when I do that and use
an analyzer, the keyword field isn't searc
Maybe we are having some communication issues.
At any rate, I did index it as a KEYWORD and when displaying used the
TermQuery.
The only problem with this though is by storing the ID (i.e. AR345) as a
Keyword, if I search for AR345 no results are returned when I use the
MultiFieldQueryParser .
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:25:23PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
> What I meant is.
>
> Say ID is Ar3453 .. well the user may want to search for Ar3453, so in
> order for it to be searchable then it would have to be indexed and not a
> keyword.
No. You should store it as a keyword.
>From the ja
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 01:25 PM, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
Say ID is Ar3453 .. well the user may want to search for Ar3453, so in
order for it to be searchable then it would have to be indexed and not
a
keyword.
*arg* - we're having a serious communication issue here. My advice to
you is
This is kind of a problem, in order to delete documents using terms you need
to have a keyword field which contain a unique value, otherwise you might
ending deleting more then you want.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hogan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:06 PM
Position increments are for relative token positions. A position
increment of zero means that a token is logically at the same position
as the previous token. A position increment of one means that a token
immediately follows the preceding token in the stream, it's the next
token to the right
Also what I am indexing is not a bunch of separate documents - or then
it would be easy to simply have a field called "url" and then the link
would go directly do that document.
However, there is a text URL with many records
During indexing, a function parses each record and puts each into a
docu
173 is the ID field from a database (which we use as a primary key). For
Lucene's purpose, it only stores the field, and does not index it.
The place where I put the print statements is before the actual filtering.
The goal of the AliasFilter is to replace spitline. The debug line is in the
Tokeni
What I meant is.
Say ID is Ar3453 .. well the user may want to search for Ar3453, so in
order for it to be searchable then it would have to be indexed and not a
keyword.
So after using
TermQuery query = new TermQuery(new Term("id", term));
How would I return the other fields in the document?
Fo
jt oob wrote:
Can I safely delete those files which do not have the prefix listed in
the segments file?
Have a look at the index file format documentation:
http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/fileformats.html
The only file besides segments that should exist is the "deleteable"
file, and the
Hi,
If I index a document like this:
IndexWriter writer = createWriter();
Document document = new Document();
document.add(Field.Text(ID_FIELD_NAME, componentId));
document.add(Field.Text(CONTENTS_FIELD_NAME, componentDescription));
writer.addDocument(document);
writer.optimize();
writer.close();
Tatu Saloranta wrote:
Also, shouldn't there be at least 3 methods that take Readers; one for
Text-like handling, another for UnStored, and last for UnIndexed.
How do you store the contents of a Reader? You'd have to double-buffer
it, first reading it into a String to store, and then tokenizing t
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Allen Atamer wrote:
Below are the results of a debug run on the piece of text that I want
aliased. The token "spitline" must be recognized as "splitline" i.e.
when I
do a search for "splitline", this record will come up.
1: [173] , start:1, end:2
1: [mis
Erik,
Below are the results of a debug run on the piece of text that I want
aliased. The token "spitline" must be recognized as "splitline" i.e. when I
do a search for "splitline", this record will come up.
1: [173] , start:1, end:2
1: [missing] , start:1, end:6
2: [hardware] , start:9, end:7
3:
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 10:41 AM, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
Maybe I should have been more clear.
static Field Keyword(String name, String value)
Constructs a String-valued Field that is not tokenized, but
is
indexed and stored.
I need to have it tokenized because people will sear
On Friday 05 December 2003 08:22, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 09:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
...
> > Field.Text(String, String) instead of the Field.Text(String, Reader)
> > version, which means I am storing the contents in the index.
>
> So use Field.UnStored(String, S
Can someone point me in the right direction with regards to "Hit Highlighting"
I have seen what Mark Harwood has done and I like it, however I am using lucene 1.2.
Are there a compatibility issues.
If no any suggestions about implementation would be helpful.
If yes are there any suggestions fo
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 10:31 AM, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
Ok thanks, but still I can't use the Simple analyzer since it won't
even
index that whole thing. I 'll give TermQuery a try. Thanks.
Yes, certainly the analyzer is important for "analyzed" fields, but it
is not used for Field.Key
Maybe I should have been more clear.
static Field Keyword(String name, String value)
Constructs a String-valued Field that is not tokenized, but is
indexed and stored.
I need to have it tokenized because people will search for that also and
it needs to be searchable.
Should I have t
Actually Erik, no I'm using Field.Text
When I used Field.Keyword and tried to get the word for return with
search results it would not display correctly...
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subje
Ok thanks, but still I can't use the Simple analyzer since it won't even
index that whole thing. I 'll give TermQuery a try. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one re
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 09:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I have seen the example SAX based XML processing in the Lucene sandbox
(thanks to the authors for contributing!) and have successfully
adapted this approach for my application. The one thing that does not
sit well with me is the
hi,
I have problems for understanding some classes definitions in Lucene
(see the end of this e-mail for the source code).
A class "FilterIndexReader" is defined at 1.
Then "FilterTermDocs" is defined as a nested static class at 2.
At 3,
public FilterTermDocs(TermDocs in)
is a constructo
you are storing the same information both ways. the string gets analyzed and
discarded, just like with the Reader.
Herb...
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Index and Field.Text
Hi,
Hi,
I have seen the example SAX based XML processing in the Lucene sandbox (thanks to the
authors for contributing!) and have successfully adapted this approach for my
application. The one thing that does not sit well with me is the fact that I am using
the method Field.Text(String, String) in
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 06:54 AM, Ramrakhiani, Vikas wrote:
Hi,
When I do range query like id:[0* to 9*] the result set exclude
documents
having id 0, 90 ... i.e boundary values are excluded.
Is it expected or am I going wrong some where.
It is expected. You're thinking that wildcards wo
anyone interested, contact me offline. whoever contacts me by the end of next week,
i'll email an outline of the derivation and we can discuss it in private emails. i
guarantee, you will learn something interesting about search engines.
Herb
-Original Message-
From: Adam Saltiel [ma
Deal all,
I am interested in implement a probabilistic model in Lucene as well.
I checked the book titled "model information retrieval" authored by Ricardo
Baeza-Yates and Berthier Ribeiro-Neto, it seems to me that the
implementation is not very complicated when we use Lucene's IndexReader
clas
Hi,
When I do range query like id:[0* to 9*] the result set exclude documents
having id 0, 90 ... i.e boundary values are excluded.
Is it expected or am I going wrong some where.
thanks,
vikas.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
--- Dror Matalon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe that indexes
that are optimized have only one segment. So
> in
> theory you could check and see that you only have one file with a
> ".fdt", ".fdx", etc.
If run `cat/index_dir/segements` on an optimized index there is only
only string in t
Herb,
Any one game ... ?
No takers? I would be very interested, but maybe beyond what can be
posted in a mail list. I'd be equally interested in any references you
may have.
As we are on this subject how does LSI and the similar CNG (context
network graph) fit into the model used by lucene. Could l
43 matches
Mail list logo
