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
-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
You really should use a TermQuery in this case anyway, rather than
using QueryParser. You wouldn't have to worry about the analyzer at
that point
for Field.Keyword. Please provide more details on the
issue you encountered using Field.Keyword.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:18 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
You really should use a TermQuery
?
For instance to display a record it would get the record with the id #
and then display the title, contents, etc.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
On Friday
in the document?
For instance to display a record it would get the record with the id #
and then display the title, contents, etc.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
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
?
For instance to display a record it would get the record with the id #
and then display the title, contents, etc.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
.
*sigh* *arg*
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:13 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 01:25 PM, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
Say ID is Ar3453 .. well the user may want
searched.
-Original Message-
From: Dror Matalon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:14 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:25:23PM -0500, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
What I meant is.
Say ID is Ar3453 .. well the user
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Returning one result
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
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
[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 do you mean 'add' in MultiFieldQueryParser? I am using all the
fields
Sorry, that was wrong
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
You really should use a TermQuery in this case anyway, rather than
using QueryParser. You wouldn't have to worry about the analyzer at
that point anyway (and I assume you're using Field.Keyword during
indexing).
Erik
On Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Pleasant, Tracy wrote:
Ok I
14 matches
Mail list logo
