On Tuesday 09 November 2004 23:14, Luke Francl wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:00, Paul Elschot wrote:
>
> > Lucene has no provision for matching by being prohibited only. This can
> > be achieved by indexing something for each document that can be
> > used in queries to match always, combined w
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:00, Paul Elschot wrote:
> Lucene has no provision for matching by being prohibited only. This can
> be achieved by indexing something for each document that can be
> used in queries to match always, combined with something prohibited
> in a query.
> But doing this is bad f
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 15:48, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> This last query has a required clause, which is what BooleanQuery
> requires when there is a NOT clause. You're getting what you want here
> because you've got an item_type:xyz clause as required. In your first
> example, you're requiring fie
Luke,
On Tuesday 09 November 2004 20:58, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've implemented a converter to translate our system's internal Query
> objects to Lucene's Query model.
>
> I recently realized that my implementation of "OR NOT" was not working
> as I would expect and I was wondering if anyone on t
On Nov 9, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Luke Francl wrote:
I recently realized that my implementation of "OR NOT" was not working
as I would expect and I was wondering if anyone on this list could give
me some advice.
Lucene's BooleanQuery does not really have the concept of OR NOT. It's
really an AND NOT.
Hi,
I've implemented a converter to translate our system's internal Query
objects to Lucene's Query model.
I recently realized that my implementation of "OR NOT" was not working
as I would expect and I was wondering if anyone on this list could give
me some advice.
I am converting a query that m
