On Dec 27, 2004, at 3:21 AM, Alex Kiselevski wrote:
Hello,
I indexed some document that included a word RPG/4.
So, when I made a search - I builded a query
Text:RPG but it didn't find a thing only Text:RPG/4 gave me the correct
result.
Tell me please what have I do to build a a dynamic
Hello,
I indexed some document that included a word RPG/4.
So, when I made a search - I builded a query
Text:RPG but it didn't find a thing only Text:RPG/4 gave me the correct
result.
Tell me please what have I do to build a a dynamic (not hardcoded like
in this example )query to get
ons,
which many engines support. After that, I think you're getting pretty
specific. Lucene supports all of these and many more.
Chuck
> -Original Message-
> From: Dongling Ding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:08 PM
> To: Lucene Users
Hi,
I am going to implement a search service and plan to use Lucene. Is
there any simple query language that is independent of any particular
search engine out there?
Thanks
Dongling
If you have received
to achieve? It would help me understand what you're after.
Any Query implementation works fine as a clause within a BooleanQuery,
there is nothing special to do for a PhrasePrefixQuery in this regard.
Erik
On Dec 6, 2004, at 6:34 AM, Mahendra wrote:
Hi,
Presently i am working on a req
trying
> to achieve? It would help me understand what you're after.
>
> Any Query implementation works fine as a clause within a BooleanQuery,
> there is nothing special to do for a PhrasePrefixQuery in this regard.
>
>Erik
>
>
>
>
Chris,
I've written a version of MultiFieldQueryParser that supports
disjunction as well as conjunction. See the classw
NewMultiFieldQueryParser in
ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/transient/janssen/SearchTest.java.
Bill
-
To unsubscri
e in the
search engine world have a good schema for determining root websites
and applying a huge boost to them in one fashion or another? mainly so
it appears before any sub pages? (assuming the query is in reference
to that site) ...
mainly
so
it appears before any sub pages? (assuming the query is in reference
to that site) ...
Consider applying the boost to the Document, rather than the field, at
index time. I assume each document in your index represents one page.
At indexing time you know whether it is a
Mahendra,
Could you provide a concrete, and simple, example of what you're trying
to achieve? It would help me understand what you're after.
Any Query implementation works fine as a clause within a BooleanQuery,
there is nothing special to do for a PhrasePrefixQuery in t
Hi,
Presently i am working on a requirement in my application, to do the
search using lucene as follows,
Users enters phrase prefix query text. The query should be constructed
as follows,
- a PhrasePrefixQuery based on the user entered text, for eg FieldA
- a termquery based on another field
i've added a
> > boost to queries that match the hostname field, which helped a little,
> > but obviously not a proper solution. Does anyone out there in the
> > search engine world have a good schema for determining root websites
> > and applying a huge boost to them
nyone out there in the
search engine world have a good schema for determining root websites
and applying a huge boost to them in one fashion or another? mainly so
it appears before any sub pages? (assuming the query is in reference
to that site) ...
Consider applying the boost to the Document,
good schema for determining root websites
and applying a huge boost to them in one fashion or another? mainly so
it appears before any sub pages? (assuming the query is in reference
to that site) ...
--
___
Chris Fraschetti
e [
There are at least 3 different ways to achieve this. You need to expand
the query such that the terms which spread a single word across fields
are combined differently from the terms which combine the words. You
want to boost the score of the result based on different words matching,
but not
Hey there folks.. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how to use
and AND term among all terms, but spread throughout the fields.
I currently use the static MultiFieldQueryParser method to parse my query..
basically I have several fields.. title, contents, and a few others...
and I
Actually, just realised a PhraseQuery is incorrect...
I only want a single TermQuery but it just needs to be quoted, d'oh.
-Original Message-
Then I found that because that analyser always returns a single token
(TermQuery) it would send through spaces into the final query s
ields array, and then overrode getFieldQuery to
check the queryText for a start char ("=" for example) and if found
remove it and switch to a non-tokenising analyser.
Then I found that because that analyser always returns a single token
(TermQuery) it would send through spaces into the fin
e to lookup all the
matching terms (for java* in your example). It will require a bit of
custom coding to be able to parse a query like "java* developer" into a
PhrasePrefixQuery. It is not something Lucene currently supports
easily.
Erik
Thanks,
Terence
On Wednesday 24 N
Hi Morus,
I want to search for the string like below:
- java developer
- javascript developer
By searching "java*", it will return more than I want. That's why I am thinking
"java* developer".
Terence
> Terence Lai writes:
> >
> > Look likes that th
Hi Daniel,
I couldn't figure out how to use the PharsePrefixQuery with a phase like "java*
developer". It only provides method to add terms. Can a term contain wildcard
character in lucene?
Thanks,
Terence
> On Wednesday 24 November 2004 08:16, Morus Walter wrote:
>
> > Lucene itself doesn't
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 08:16, Morus Walter wrote:
> Lucene itself doesn't handle wildcards within phrases.
This can be added using PhrasePrefixQuery (which is slightly misnamed):
http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/PhrasePrefixQuery.html
Regards
Daniel
---
Terence Lai writes:
>
> Look likes that the wildcard query disappeared. In fact, I am expecting
> text:"java* developer" to be returned. It seems to me that the QueryParser
> cannot handle the wildcard within a quoted String.
>
That's not just QueryParser.
Hi all,
I am trying to use the QueryParser.parse() to parse a query string like "java*
developer". Note that I want the wildcard string, java*, followed by the word
developer. The following is the code.
-
String qryStr = "\"java* developer\"&q
On Nov 22, 2004, at 9:17 AM, Morus Walter wrote:
Erik Hatcher writes:
If your query isn't entered by users, you shouldn't use query parser
in
most cases anyway.
I'd go even further and say in all cases.
If you use lucene as a search server you have to provide the query
somehow.
Erik Hatcher writes:
> > If your query isn't entered by users, you shouldn't use query parser in
> > most cases anyway.
>
> I'd go even further and say in all cases.
>
If you use lucene as a search server you have to provide the query somehow.
E.g. we have an
ple
to indicate this clause is not to be tokenised.
I suggested that in a recent discussion and Erik Hatcher objected that
it isn't a good idea, to require that users know which field to query
in which way. I guess he is right.
QueryParser is a one-size fits (?) all sort of beast. It has
clause is not to be tokenised.
I suggested that in a recent discussion and Erik Hatcher objected that
it isn't a good idea, to require that users know which field to query
in which way. I guess he is right.
If your query isn't entered by users, you shouldn't use query parser in
most
On Monday 22 November 2004 05:02, Kauler, Leto S wrote:
> Hi Lucene list,
>
> We have the need for analysed and 'not analysed/not tokenised' clauses
> within one query. Imagine an unparsed query like:
>
> +title:"Hello World" +path:Resources\Live\1
>
Hi Lucene list,
We have the need for analysed and 'not analysed/not tokenised' clauses
within one query. Imagine an unparsed query like:
+title:"Hello World" +path:Resources\Live\1
In the above example we would want the first clause to use
StandardAnalyser and the secon
In a July 2004 message
(http://issues.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1757461
but the list archives seem to be down right now), Martin Stein quoted
Doug Cutting as giving this formula to estimate the amount of memory
consumed by a query:
1 byte * Number of searchable fields in
Thank you, Erik and Paul. I'm not sure what SpanQuery is, but anyway we've
decided to freeze the version of Lucene we use.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 11 November 2004 03:51, Satoshi Hasegawa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Our program accepts input in the form of Lucene query syntax from the user,
> but we wish to perform additional tasks such as thesaurus expansion. So I
> want to manipulate the Query object that resul
On Nov 10, 2004, at 9:51 PM, Satoshi Hasegawa wrote:
Our program accepts input in the form of Lucene query syntax from the
user,
but we wish to perform additional tasks such as thesaurus expansion.
So I
want to manipulate the Query object that results from parsing.
You may want to consider using
Hello,
(B
(BOur program accepts input in the form of Lucene query syntax from the user,
(Bbut we wish to perform additional tasks such as thesaurus expansion. So I
(Bwant to manipulate the Query object that results from parsing.
(B
(BMy question is, is the result of the Query#rewrite
f removing), or am I barking up the wrong
> tree?
>
> regards, -Mark.
>
> On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:52, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > Hello Mark,
> >
> > It sounds like you could extend QueryParser and override one of the
> > Query get***Query methods (getFieldQuer
nd of 'reverse' of the stop-word
list (boosting instead of removing), or am I barking up the wrong tree?
regards, -Mark.
On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:52, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> It sounds like you could extend QueryParser and override one of the
> Query get***Q
Hello Mark,
It sounds like you could extend QueryParser and override one of the
Query get***Query methods (getFieldQuery?), perhaps first calling the
super method, and then adding a boost based on the words, which you
would look up in your implementation of the getFieldQuery method.
Otis
Hi,
I have a database table of text flattend out and indexed.
Although searching with fuzzy query works well in most instances, on
occasions however the target record appears way down the list of
matching records.
This is because the query text may contain lots of irrelevant terms (in
the
On Oct 21, 2004, at 3:32 AM, Karthik N S wrote:
I will have to Re - Index all my 1 Million subindexes with the 'Price
FieldType' padded of to standard no of '0' s.
So can use the code modified while Searching to find the range of
Query...
[ Is there any other way
an use the code modified while Searching to find the range of Query...
[ Is there any other way to handle this Only during SearchProcesss... ]
Please some more Advise:(
Thx in advance.
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
e Users List; Jonathan Hager
> Subject: RE: Range Query
>
> Hi
>
>Jonathan
>
>
> "When searching I also pad the query term" ???
>
>When Exactly are u handling this [ using During Indexing Process
> Also or
> while
Hi
Jonathan
"When searching I also pad the query term" ???
When Exactly are u handling this [ using During Indexing Process Also or
while Search on Process Only ]
Can u be Please be specific.
[ if time permits and possible please can u send me the s
t;);
When searching I also pad the query term. I looked into hooking into
QueryParser, but since the lower/upper prices for my application are
different inputs, I choose to handle them without hooking into the
QueryParser.
Jonathan
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:35:06 +0530, Karthik N S
<[EMAIL PROT
5 AM
> To: LUCENE
> Subject: Range Query
>
>
> Hi
>
> Guys
>
> Apologies.
>
>
>
> I have a Field Type "Text" 'ItemPrice' , Using it to Store "
Price
> Factor in numeric "
Price:[10.00 TO 50.60]
I get results other then the Range that has been executed [This may be
due to query parsing the Ascii values instead of numeric values ]
Am I am missing something in the Querry syntax or Is this the wrong way to
construct the Query.
Please Somebody Advise me
Tea Yu wrote:
For the following implementations:
1) storing boolean strings in fields X and Y separately
2) storing the same info in a field XY as 3 enums: X, Y, B, N meaning only X
is True, only Y is True, both are True or both are False
Is there significant performance gain when we substitute "X:
Hi,
For the following implementations:
1) storing boolean strings in fields X and Y separately
2) storing the same info in a field XY as 3 enums: X, Y, B, N meaning only X
is True, only Y is True, both are True or both are False
Is there significant performance gain when we substitute "X:T OR Y:
d away?
I used lucene 1.4, rc3.
Thanks very much for helps,
Lisheng
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:59 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Keyword query confusion
On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:26 PM, Fred Toth wrote:
On Sep 25, 2004, at 5:59 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:26 PM, Fred Toth wrote:
I'm trying to understand what's going on with the query parser
and keyword fields.
It's a confusing situation, for sure.
I've got a large subset of my documents which are "p
On Sep 24, 2004, at 12:26 PM, Fred Toth wrote:
I'm trying to understand what's going on with the query parser
and keyword fields.
It's a confusing situation, for sure.
I've got a large subset of my documents which are "publications".
So as to be able to query these
The StandardAnalyzer removes the "1" as it is a stop word.
There are two ways you can work around this problem.
1 as you mentioned is to create a Query object programmatically.
2 You can use WhiteSpace Analyzer instead of StandardAnalyzer.
Aviran
-Original Message-
From:
Hi all,
I'm trying to understand what's going on with the query parser
and keyword fields.
I've got a large subset of my documents which are "publications".
So as to be able to query these, I've got this in the indexer:
doc.add(Field.Keyword("is_pub
Can anyone help me with code to get the topterms of a given field for a
query resultset?
Here is code modified from Luke to get the topterms for a field:
public TermInfo[] mostCommonTerms( String fieldName, int numberOfTerms )
{
//make sure min will get a positive number
very correct you are. changing the format of the numbers when i index
then and when i do the range fixed my problem.. thanks much.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:08:50 +0200, Morus Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Fraschetti writes:
> > I've more or less figured out the quer
Chris Fraschetti writes:
> I've more or less figured out the query string required to get a range
> of docs.. say date[0 TO 10]assuming my dates are from 1 to 10 (for
> the sake of this example) ... my query has results that I don't
> understand. if i do from 0 TO 10, t
I've more or less figured out the query string required to get a range
of docs.. say date[0 TO 10]assuming my dates are from 1 to 10 (for
the sake of this example) ... my query has results that I don't
understand. if i do from 0 TO 10, then I only get results matching
0,1,10 ... if
Chris Fraschetti writes:
> can someone assist me in building or deny the possibility of combing a
> range query and a standard query?
>
> say for instance i have two fields i'm searching on... one being the a
> field with an epoch date associated with the entry, and the
>
can someone assist me in building or deny the possibility of combing a
range query and a standard query?
say for instance i have two fields i'm searching on... one being the a
field with an epoch date associated with the entry, and the
content so how can I make a query to select a ran
me and for pointing me in the right direction.
Derek
Derek Baker wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
If I do it manually:
Term term1 = new Term("adzer", "#");
Term term2 = new Term("adzer", "0");
Query myQuery = new RangeQuery(term1, term2, true);
h
Thanks for your reply.
If I do it manually:
Term term1 = new Term("adzer", "#");
Term term2 = new Term("adzer", "0");
Query myQuery = new RangeQuery(term1, term2, true);
hits = searcher.search(myQuery);
I still get nothing. If I make the fir
On Friday 17 September 2004 19:37, Derek Baker wrote:
> However, if I create a range query that I would expect to find that
> value, I get nothing. The range query string is: "adzer:[# TO 0]" (minus
> the quotes). As far as I can tell, this query string should find any
> val
Hi,
I'm having a problem with a range query.
I have a field in my documents called "adzer". In at least one of those
documents, the value is: "-93" (without the quotes). I
know this because if I create a search string like so: "adzer:
\\-9
gt; I would like to provide an alternative query syntax for ranges by
> using
> a colon (':') or two dots ('..') instead of ' TO '.
>
> For example:
>
> mod_date:[20020101:20030101]
>
> Or
>
> mod_date:[20020101..20030101]
>
> W
Hello,
I would like to provide an alternative query syntax for ranges by using
a colon (':') or two dots ('..') instead of ' TO '.
For example:
mod_date:[20020101:20030101]
Or
mod_date:[20020101..20030101]
What would be the correct procedure to modify the QueryPar
IL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:59 PM
> To: Lucene Users List
> Subject: Re: Range query problem
>
>
> On Thursday 26 August 2004 11:02, Alex Kiselevski wrote:
>
> > I have a strange problem with range query "PERIOD:[1 TO 9]" It works
> >
Thanks, I'll try it
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:59 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Range query problem
On Thursday 26 August 2004 11:02, Alex Kiselevski wrote:
> I have a strange problem with ran
On Thursday 26 August 2004 11:02, Alex Kiselevski wrote:
> I have a strange problem with range query "PERIOD:[1 TO 9]"
> It works only if the second parameter is equals or less than 9
> If it's greater than 9 , it finds no documents
You have to store your numbers so that
Hello,
I have a strange problem with range query "PERIOD:[1 TO 9]"
It works only if the second parameter is equals or less than 9
If it's greater than 9 , it finds no documents
Thanks in advance
Alex Kiselevsky
Speech Technology Tel:972-9-776-43-46
R&
That is correct... fuzzy searches are only on a per-term basis.
If what you meant, though, was a phrase query ("full" near "name") you
have to add an explicit slop factor like "full name"~5
Erik
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:19 AM, Stephane James Vaucher wrote:
F
earches, but it seems to indicate that it can only
be used with single word terms. The query parser might have been written
to support that (the output indicates that as well).
HTH,
sv
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Alex Kiselevski wrote:
>
> I use QueryParser
>
dResults(CVSearcher.java:89)
at com.stp.test.CVTest.main(CVTest.java:223)
-Original Message-
From: Stephane James Vaucher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:07 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: what is wrong with query
You'll have to give us more info
You'll have to give us more information than that...
What is the problem you are seeing? I'll assume that you get no results.
Tell us of the structure of your documents and how you index every field.
Concerning your syntax, if you are using the distributed query parser, you
don&
Hi, pls,
Tell me what is wrong with query:
author:( +name AND "full name"~) AND book:( +university)
Alex Kiselevsky
Speech Technology Tel:972-9-776-43-46
R&D, Amdocs - IsraelMobile: 972-53-63 50 38
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The information con
You need to keep a list of common words (aka stop words) somewhere.
Then you can tokenize your input query, and check each token (each
query word) against your list. You should probably use the same list
of stop/common words as the one that you are likely feeding into your
Analyzer at index and
FYI,
User enter the search query is like "What is java"
Here "is" a common word how can I find out common words.
I need the result like
"is" a common word and not include your search.
Thanks,
Natarajan.
Hello
What is the best practice to parce a Query object.?
QueryParcer only work with String, but if I have a Query?
I want that anothers applications build yours lucene Query´s, and I want
parse this when this applications do search with my server application. In
my server application I store
On Thursday 29 July 2004 22:32, Hetan Shah wrote:
> All the Words:
> The Exact Phrase:
> Any of the Words:
Just use the query parser. For the "All" fields, set
setOperator(DEFAULT_OPERATOR_AND) before you call parse(). For the phrase,
just add quotes around the query befo
What I am trying to do is to create the query based on the field in
which user enters the keywords.
I have the following fields.
All the Words:
The Exact Phrase:
Any of the Words:
For All the words and Any of the words I am able to use Query. For The
Exact Phrase I want to use the PhraseQuery
Hi Erik,
I am trying to create the query based on the field the user enters the
keywords in.
I have these three field.
All the Words:
The Exact Phrase:
Any of the Words:
For All the words and Any of the words I am able to use Query. For The
Exact Phrase I want to use the PhraseQuery. That is
phraseQuery = true;
queryString = phraseQueryString;
}
if(phraseQuery){
PhraseQuery pQuery = new PhraseQuery();
pQuery.add(new Term("contents", phraseString));
pQuery.setSlop(0);
QueryParser qP = new QueryParser();
query = qP.parse(phraseString);
}
I
ing;
}
if(phraseQuery){
PhraseQuery pQuery = new PhraseQuery();
pQuery.add(new Term("contents", phraseString));
pQuery.setSlop(0);
QueryParser qP = new QueryParser();
query = qP.parse(phraseString);
}
This is piece of the code, what I intend to do is
the phrase query for my search. Regular Query is working
fine, but the Phrase Query does not seem to work.
TIA,
-H
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hello,
Can someone on the mailing list send me a copy of sample code of how to
implement the phrase query for my search. Regular Query is working fine,
but the Phrase Query does not seem to work.
TIA,
-H
-
To unsubscribe, e
Guys/Gals,
Does and one have any pointers for this kind of query?
Thanks.
Need some help with creating a query. Here is the scenario:
Field 1:
Field 2:
Field 3:
MultiSelect 1
Hey guys,
Need some help with creating a query. Here is the scenario:
Field 1:
Field 2:
Field 3:
MultiSelect 1 :
MultiSelect 2
urrently might return
> a TermQuery; you'll need to change that so it returns a BooleanQuery with two
> TermQuerys. These two queries would have the same term, but a different
> field.
>
> Another approach is to leave QueryParser alone and modify the query after it
>
t; second gives "zero" hits. Am I misunderstanding something or is there
> a bug?
The first query creates a boolean query with a required and a prohibited term.
The second one, creates one boolean query for the !operate term, containing
only one prohibited term and combines this with a q
I would think the following strings passed to the QueryParser should
yield the same results:
#1: +telescope AND !operate
#2: (+telescope) AND (!operate)
However the first string seems to give the correct results while the
second gives "zero" hits. Am I misunderstanding something or is there
For example, getFieldQuery currently might return
a TermQuery; you'll need to change that so it returns a BooleanQuery with two
TermQuerys. These two queries would have the same term, but a different
field.
Another approach is to leave QueryParser alone and modify the query after it
has been parse
Dear all,
I would like to do the exact same thing that Ali Rouhi posed as a
challenge in [*] and has found a solution for. Unfortunately I haven't
been able to get through to him. Does anybody here know which changes I
would have to make to QueryParser.jj to get the functionality described?
[*] h
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:08 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: HOWTO USE SORT on QUERY PARSER :(
example:
query = QueryParser.parse(queryString, FIELD_CONTENTS, analyzer);
Sort sort =new Sort();
sort.setSort(FIELD_DATE,true);
//hits = searcher.
D]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:08 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: HOWTO USE SORT on QUERY PARSER :(
example:
query = QueryParser.parse(queryString, FIELD_CONTENTS, analyzer);
Sort sort =new Sort();
sort.setSort(FIELD_DATE,true);
//hits = se
example:
query = QueryParser.parse(queryString, FIELD_CONTENTS, analyzer);
Sort sort =new Sort();
sort.setSort(FIELD_DATE,true);
//hits = searcher.search(query,sort);
hits = multiSearcher.search(query,sort);
...
FIELD_DATE - indexed field.
Regards,
Vladimir
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:38 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: HOWTO USE SORT on QUERY PARSER :(
It is config problem.
Run build.xml --> [Run ANT...]--> Run unit tests.
Vladimir.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:27:25 +0530
"Karthik N S" <[EMAIL
Users List
Subject: Re: HOWTO USE SORT on QUERY PARSER :(
Hi!
From CVS -->
jakarta-lucene/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/TestSort.java
Run it as UnitTest ( :-( --> :-))
Best regards,
Vladimir.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:31:18 +0530
"Karthik N S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Yuryev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:12 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: HOWTO USE SORT on QUERY PARSER :(
Hi!
From CVS -->
jakarta-lucene/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/TestSort.java
Run it as UnitT
e explain to me with a simple SRC example of
how to
use SORT on Query parser [1.4 lucene]
[ I am confused with the code snippet on the CVS Test Case]
with regards
Karthik
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:29 AM
To: [EMAIL
Hey
Guys
Apologies
Can somebody please explain to me with a simple SRC example of how to
use SORT on Query parser [1.4 lucene]
[ I am confused with the code snippet on the CVS Test Case]
with regards
Karthik
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I really would like to see are some best practices or some advice from
some users who are working with really large indices how they handle this
situation, or why they don't have to care about it or maybe why I am
completely missing the point ;-))
Many folks with re
101 - 200 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
