Luke Shannon wrote:
Hi Tod;
Thanks for your help.
I was able to do what you said but in a much uglier way using a Boolean
Query and adding Wildcard Queries.
The end result looks like this:
The query: +(type:138) +((-name:*tim* -name:*bill* -name:*harry*
+olfaithfull:stillhere))
But this one works a
Hi Tod;
Thanks for your help.
I was able to do what you said but in a much uglier way using a Boolean
Query and adding Wildcard Queries.
The end result looks like this:
The query: +(type:138) +((-name:*tim* -name:*bill* -name:*harry*
+olfaithfull:stillhere))
But this one works as expected.
Th
Luke Shannon wrote:
The API I'm working with combines a series of queries into one larger one
using a boolean query.
Queries on the same field get OR's into one big query. All remaining queries
are AND'd with this big one.
Working with in this system I have:
arg = (mario luigi bobby joe) //i do hav
The API I'm working with combines a series of queries into one larger one
using a boolean query.
Queries on the same field get OR's into one big query. All remaining queries
are AND'd with this big one.
Working with in this system I have:
arg = (mario luigi bobby joe) //i do have control of how
Sorry about the typos.
What I would like is a document with a type field = 181,
olfaithfull=stillHere and a name field not containing tim, bill or harry.
Thanks,
Luke
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Elschot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Re:
Luke Shannon wrote:
Hi;
I'm trying to create a query that look for a field containing type:181 and
name doesn't contain tim, bill or harry.
+(type: 181) +((-name: tim -name:bill -name:harry +oldfaith:stillHere))
+(type: 181) +((-name: tim OR bill OR harry +oldfaith:stillHere))
+(type: 181) +((-name
On Monday 21 February 2005 23:23, Luke Shannon wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I'm trying to create a query that look for a field containing type:181 and
> name doesn't contain tim, bill or harry.
type: 181 -(name: tim name:bill name:harry)
> +(type: 181) +((-name: tim -name:bill -name:harry +oldfaith:stillHe
Hi;
I'm trying to create a query that look for a field containing type:181 and
name doesn't contain tim, bill or harry.
+(type: 181) +((-name: tim -name:bill -name:harry +oldfaith:stillHere))
+(type: 181) +((-name: tim OR bill OR harry +oldfaith:stillHere))
+(type: 181) +((-name:*(tim bill harry)
The problem is your KeywordSynonymAnalyzer is not truly a "keyword"
analyzer in that it is tokenizing the field into parts. So Document 1
has [test] and [mario] as tokens that come from the LowerCaseTokenizer.
Look at Lucene's svn repository under contrib/analyzers and you'll see
a KeywordToke
On Monday 21 February 2005 20:43, Todd VanderVeen wrote:
> Runde, Kevin wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >How does Lucene handle multi term queries? Does it use short circuiting?
> >So if a user entered:
> >(a OR b) AND c
> >But my program knew testing for "c" is cheaper than testing for "(a OR
> >b)" an
John Wang wrote:
Anyone has any thoughts on this?
Does this help?
http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Searchable.html#explain(org.apache.lucene.search.Query,%20int)
Thanks
-John
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:39:52 -0800, John Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi:
Is there wa
Luke Shannon wrote:
Hello;
Does anyone see a problem with the following approach?
No, no problem with it and it's in fact what my "Wordnet Query
Expansion" sandbox module does.
The nice thing about Lucene is you at least have the option of doing
things the other way - you can write a custom Anal
Anyone has any thoughts on this?
Thanks
-John
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:39:52 -0800, John Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
>Is there way to find out given a hit from a search, find out which
> fields contributed to the hit?
>
> e.g.
>
> If my search for:
>
> contents1="brown fox" OR
Runde, Kevin wrote:
Hi All,
How does Lucene handle multi term queries? Does it use short circuiting?
So if a user entered:
(a OR b) AND c
But my program knew testing for "c" is cheaper than testing for "(a OR
b)" and I rewrote the query as:
c AND (a OR b)
Would the query run faster?
Sorry if this h
On Monday 21 February 2005 19:59, Runde, Kevin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> How does Lucene handle multi term queries? Does it use short circuiting?
> So if a user entered:
> (a OR b) AND c
> But my program knew testing for "c" is cheaper than testing for "(a OR
> b)" and I rewrote the query as:
> c AND (
Hi All,
How does Lucene handle multi term queries? Does it use short circuiting?
So if a user entered:
(a OR b) AND c
But my program knew testing for "c" is cheaper than testing for "(a OR
b)" and I rewrote the query as:
c AND (a OR b)
Would the query run faster?
Sorry if this has already be answ
Thank you this helped a lot...
Michael Celona
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Using the highlighter from the sandbox with a prefix query.
On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Michae
>One thing to mention
> that I am using a
> MultiSearcher to rewrite the queries. I tried...
Ah. I remember this got a little ugly. The highlighter
has a Junit test that demonstrates highlighting fuzzy
queries when using a multisearcher. Take a look at
that.
I can't remember the ins and outs of t
On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Michael Celona wrote:
That the only stack I get. One thing to mention that I am using a
MultiSearcher to rewrite the queries. I tried...
query = searcher_last.rewrite( query );
query = searcher_cur.rewrite( query );
using IndexSearcher and I don't get an error... Howe
Hello;
Does anyone see a problem with the following approach?
For synonyms, rather than putting them in the index, I put the original term
and all the synonyms in the query.
Every time I create a query, I check if the term has any synonyms. If it
does, I create Boolean Query OR'ing one Query obj
William Lee wrote:
is there a simple and
fast way to get a list of document IDs through the lucene index?
I can use a loop to iterate from 0 to IndexReader.maxDoc and
check whether an the document id is valid through
IndexReader.document(i), but this would imply that I have to
retrieve the docum
That the only stack I get. One thing to mention that I am using a
MultiSearcher to rewrite the queries. I tried...
query = searcher_last.rewrite( query );
query = searcher_cur.rewrite( query );
using IndexSearcher and I don't get an error... However, I not able to
highlight wildcard queries.
Mi
Hi
Do I need to store and index the field I want to sort? Currently I am
only indexing the field without storing nor tokenizing it.
I have a date field indexing as MMdd and I have two documents with
the same date. When I do my search with:
searcher.search(query, new SortField("date", true));
On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Michael Celona wrote:
I am using
query = searcher.rewrite( query );
and it is throwing java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException .
Am I able to use the searcher rewrite method like this?
What's the full stack trace?
Erik
--
I am using
query = searcher.rewrite( query );
and it is throwing java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException .
Am I able to use the searcher rewrite method like this?
Thanks,
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4
Looks like the issue has been resolved with the lucene.apache.org DNS.
Erik
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 20, 2005 9:34:50 PM EST
To: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subjec
26 matches
Mail list logo
