Bill Janssen wrote:
I'm not sure this solution is very robust
I think I already sent an email with a better code...
Sergiu
Thanks to something Doug said when I first opened this discussion, I
went back and looked at my implementation. He said, "Can't we just do
this in getFieldQuery?". Figu
Hi Folks,
My search app is dealing with multiple indices each contain 1 to 20
fields, 100k to 1 million documents and size ranging from 50 megs to 10
gb.
Wanted to know best practices to deal with maintenance of
indices/collections like this with no down time?
Background: I wrote a very simple s
Thanks to something Doug said when I first opened this discussion, I
went back and looked at my implementation. He said, "Can't we just do
this in getFieldQuery?". Figuring that he probably knew what he was
talking about, I looked a bit harder, and it turns out he was right.
Here's a much simpler
Thanks Daniel. That helps.
> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 19:22, Abhay Saswade wrote:
>
>> I tried following but no luck
>> I have written alias filter which returns 2 more tokens for doom3 as 3
>> and doom
>>
>> I construct query +GAME:doom3
>> QueryParser returns +GAME:"doom3 3 doom"
>
> Your appr
Thanks a lot to everybody.
I think adding few extra fields could be a very good approach for resolving
the range search issues I'm having.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Vanlerberghe, Luc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:23 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: B
Even if you need to be able to search on ranges that include the time,
you could benefit from adding a few extra fields to your documents.
For example: add a year field and an hour field:
If the user then specifies a range between 2001-08-10 11:00 and
2004-10-11 13:00, you break it up behind the
On Oct 26, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
OK, I got that part - to limit the clause counts limit the range. In
my case
replace the timestamp with date and if it gets too big again replace
the
MMDD with MM and later with . And that of course includes
fixing
the old files eve
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 19:22, Abhay Saswade wrote:
> I tried following but no luck
> I have written alias filter which returns 2 more tokens for doom3 as 3
> and doom
>
> I construct query +GAME:doom3
> QueryParser returns +GAME:"doom3 3 doom"
Your approach is correct, but QueryParser doesn't
Looks like you produced a PhraseQuery rather than a BooleanQuery. You
want
+GAME:(doom3 3 doom)
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhay Saswade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Aliasing problem
>
> Hi
OK, I got that part - to limit the clause counts limit the range. In my case
replace the timestamp with date and if it gets too big again replace the
MMDD with MM and later with . And that of course includes fixing
the old files every time so they have new field.
I was actually looking
Hi,
One document in my index contains term 'doom 3' (indexed, tokenized, stored)
How can I match term doom3 with that document?
I tried following but no luck
I have written alias filter which returns 2 more tokens for doom3 as 3 and
doom
I construct query +GAME:doom3
QueryParser returns +GAME:"d
Hi Rob,
I noticed that you are using "org.apache.lucene.demos" where its just "demo"
Regards
CG
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:54:38 +0100, Rob Hailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using lucene version 1.4.2 but am consistently getting an error
> when I run this:
>
> java -verbose -classpath
> /User
I think what Erik's asking is whether you can live with expressing your indexed date
in the form of MMDD, without the hour and minute extension. That will sharply
educe the number of range query expansion terms. If you're using the timestamp as a
unique identifier, you might consider creat
>
>On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:35 PM, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
>> Why there is a limit on the number of clauses? and is there any harm in
>> setting MaxClauseCount to Integer.MAX_VALUE?
>
>The harm is in performance and resource utilization. Rather than do
>this, though, read on...
>
>> I'm using a Range
Hello Gard,
This is certainly doable, it just depends on your hardware, complexity
of queries, frequency of queries, and such. There is a benchmark page
on the Lucene site that you may want to check to get some ideas.
Otis
--- Gard Arneson Haugen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have
On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:35 PM, Angelov, Rossen wrote:
Why there is a limit on the number of clauses? and is there any harm in
setting MaxClauseCount to Integer.MAX_VALUE?
The harm is in performance and resource utilization. Rather than do
this, though, read on...
I'm using a Range Query on a field
Hi,
I have just started looking at Lucene and are not an experienced user of
Java, but from what I've been reading this search tool should manage
large amounts of documents.
I'm wondering if someone have any experience using Lucene on large
amount of documents. I need to be able to index and se
OK, but even in this case parsing the doc would not be a violation,
because actually what we need for lucene is just collection of terms. Has
nothing to do with printing or copying of _text_ pieces.
As long You provide method returning just Document (I mean lucene
document) permissions specified
Many thanks to everybody for interesting info
Regards and have a nice day
J.
sergiu gordea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25.10.2004 17:05
Please respond to "Lucene Users List"
To: Lucene Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Iouli Golovatyi/X/GP/Novartis)
Subject:
19 matches
Mail list logo
