> Doesn't that one do just that - treats fields differently, based on
> their name?
yes it does, but look at the question's title
"How do I write my own Analyzer?"
if someone has a problem with a non-tokenized field (which was the
problem of the mail thread that started this) then he doesn't kno
Not sure which FAQ entry you are refering to.
This one http://www.jguru.com/faq/view.jsp?EID=1006122 ?
Doesn't that one do just that - treats fields differently, based on
their name?
Otis
--- Stefanos Karasavvidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came accross the same problem and I think that the
I came accross the same problem and I think that the faq entry you
(Otis) propose should get a better title so that users can find more
easily an answer to this problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and please forgive any wrong assumptions I may
have made), put the problem is on "how to query on a
Thanks, it's a FAQ entry now:
How do I write my own Analyzer?
http://www.jguru.com/faq/view.jsp?EID=1006122
Otis
--- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> karl øie wrote:
> > I have a Lucene Document with a field named "element" which is
> stored
> > and indexed but not tokenized. The val
it works :-) when i see this i understand that the term being parsed by
the queryparser is sent trough the analyzer as well... thanks!
mvh karl øie
On torsdag, sep 26, 2002, at 18:44 Europe/Oslo, Doug Cutting wrote:
> karl øie wrote:
>> I have a Lucene Document with a field named "element" whi
, September 27, 2002 2:24 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Problems with exact matces on non-tokenized fields...
lex Murzaku wrote:
> I was trying this as well but now I get something I can't understand:
> My query (Query: +element:POST +nr:3) is supposed to match only one
> re
lex Murzaku wrote:
> I was trying this as well but now I get something I can't understand:
> My query (Query: +element:POST +nr:3) is supposed to match only one
> record. Indeed Lucene returns that record with the highest score but it
> also returns others that shouldn't be there at all even if it
2002 12:44 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Problems with exact matces on non-tokenized fields...
karl øie wrote:
> I have a Lucene Document with a field named "element" which is stored
> and indexed but not tokenized. The value of the field is "POST"
> (uppercase)
karl øie wrote:
> I have a Lucene Document with a field named "element" which is stored
> and indexed but not tokenized. The value of the field is "POST"
> (uppercase). But the only way i can match the field is by entering
> "element:POST?" or "element:POST*" in the QueryParser class.
There ar
I have also observed this behavior.
- Original Message -
From: "karl øie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 4:50 AM
Subject: Problems with exact matces on non-tokenized fields...
Hi, i have a problem with getting a exact m
Message-
From: karl øie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:22 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Problems with exact matces on non-tokenized fields...
Hm.. a misunderstanding: i don't create the field with the value
"POST?" i create it with "POS
Hm.. a misunderstanding: i don't create the field with the value
"POST?" i create it with "POST". "element:POST?" or "element:POST*" are
the strings i send to the QueryParser for searching.
mvh Karl Øie
On torsdag, sep 26, 2002, at 14:13 Europe/Oslo, Alex Murzaku wrote:
> But indeed "POST" do
But indeed "POST" does not match to "POST?". If you are not tokenizing
the field, the character "?" remains there together with everything
else.
-Original Message-
From: karl øie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:50 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Problems
13 matches
Mail list logo
