Sure thing!
and your original problem (.toString()) is now fixed as per your suggestion.
Best,
Mattias
2011/6/29 Balazs E. Pataki <pat...@dsd.sztaki.hu>
> OK, I will then try use this as a "feature". We will always have the
> source to hack it back in case these "_e" fields go away in the future. :-)
> ---
> balazs
>
> On 6/29/11 10:22 AM, Mattias Persson wrote:
> > Reading the source is always a good thing :)
> >
> > I don't see them changing in the near future, and even if it's a bit of a
> > hack to use them (since they are there mostly to be able to remove stuff)
> > I've used them also in at least one scenario. I think you can give it a
> go,
> > but it's not an "official" feature that could potentially change.
> >
> > 2011/6/29 Balazs E. Pataki<pat...@dsd.sztaki.hu>
> >
> >> Great, thank you!
> >>
> >> Another thing I just found in IndexType: for a fulltext index each field
> >> is stored as fulltext (tokenized into terms) and there's also an "exact"
> >> field (the same index postfixed with "_e"). I think this feature is not
> >> documented officially, so my question is, whether we can count on these
> >> "_e" fields to exist in the lucene index in future versions of neo4j as
> >> well? Because I would be glad to use it.
> >>
> >> In my application I have text content which I index in a "fulltext"
> >> neo4j/lucene index, but I also have to store it in "exact" form. Without
> >> knowing about this "_e" feature I had to do this "exact" indexing by
> >> tweaking the content (replacing spaces with "_" and doing the same with
> >> search terms). If I could instead depend on "_e" fields, I could get rid
> >> of my own exact index tweaking and my index would be half as big.
> >>
> >> Do you think I can safely depend on these implicit exact indexed fields
> >> in fulletxt indexes?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> ---
> >> balazs
> >>
> >> On 6/29/11 7:44 AM, Mattias Persson wrote:
> >>> Wow, thank you for finding that. Well done!
> >>>
> >>> I'll fix it and if it doesn't break anything else then I'll commit it.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Mattias
> >>>
> >>> Den tisdagen den 28:e juni 2011 skrev Balazs E. Pataki<
> >> pat...@dsd.sztaki.hu>:
> >>>> Hi Mattias,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the tip!
> >>>>
> >>>> I started to look around and I think I found something. When
> "fulltext"
> >>>> type index is created its type will be CustomType (subclass of
> IndexType
> >>>> - IndexType is used for "exact" indexes) in neo4j. CustomType
> overrides
> >>>> the addToDocument() of IndexType method, which is the function that
> >>>> actually created a Lucene field.
> >>>>
> >>>> IndexType's looks like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> public void addToDocument( Document document, String key, Object value
> )
> >>>> {
> >>>> document.add( instantiateField( key, value, Index.NOT_ANALYZED )
> );
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> CustomType's implementation on teh other hand:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Override
> >>>> public void addToDocument( Document document, String key, Object value
> )
> >>>> {
> >>>> document.add( new Field( exactKey( key ), value.toString(),
> >>>> Store.YES, Index.NOT_ANALYZED ) );
> >>>> document.add( instantiateField( key, value.toString(),
> >> Index.ANALYZED
> >>>> ) );
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> What I can see here is that CustomType's version explicitely converts
> >>>> value to a String and therefore instantiateField won't detect it as a
> >>>> number and will not create a NumericField for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could this be the root of the problem?
> >>>>
> >>>> I just replaced 'value.toString()' with 'value', and now my test runs
> OK
> >>>> (and fulltext search for terms still work beside numeric range
> queries).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> ---
> >>>> balazs
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/28/11 4:41 PM, Mattias Persson wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Balazs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the issue could be in lucene, with the mix of the
> >>>>> white-space-tokenizing-analyzer and numeric values. I don't know.
> What
> >> I see
> >>>>> in neo4j is that it treats the values the exact same way, the queries
> >> to the
> >>>>> index is exactly the same, but it just doesn't return any values. I
> >> think
> >>>>> there needs to be some more googling around this to get more answers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/6/28 Balazs E. Pataki<pat...@dsd.sztaki.hu>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm playing around with indexing and numeric range queries according
> >> to
> >>>>>> this documentation:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/snapshot/indexing-lucene-extras.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> According to my tests numeric range queries
> >>>>>> (QueryContext.numericRange()) only have effect when "exact" type
> index
> >>>>>> is used.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Transaction tx = graphDb.beginTx();
> >>>>>> try {
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Index<Node> exactIndex =
> graphDb.index().forNodes("exactIndex",
> >>>>>> MapUtil.stringMap( IndexManager.PROVIDER, "lucene", "type", "exact"
> >> ));
> >>>>>> Index<Node> fulltextIndex =
> >> graphDb.index().forNodes("fulltextIndex",
> >>>>>> MapUtil.stringMap( IndexManager.PROVIDER, "lucene", "type",
> "fulltext"
> >> ));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Node n1 = graphDb.createNode();
> >>>>>> n1.setProperty("foo", 5);
> >>>>>> exactIndex.add(n1, "foo", ValueContext.numeric(5));
> >>>>>> fulltextIndex.add(n1, "foo", ValueContext.numeric(5));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Node n2 = graphDb.createNode();
> >>>>>> n2.setProperty("foo", 25);
> >>>>>> exactIndex.add(n2, "foo", ValueContext.numeric(25));
> >>>>>> fulltextIndex.add(n2, "foo", ValueContext.numeric(25));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> // Force commit
> >>>>>> tx.success();
> >>>>>> tx.finish();
> >>>>>> tx = graphDb.beginTx();
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> //Search exact
> >>>>>> QueryContext qctx = QueryContext.numericRange("foo", 3, 25);
> >>>>>> IndexHits<Node> hits = exactIndex.query(qctx);
> >>>>>> Iterator<Node> it = hits.iterator();
> >>>>>> while (it.hasNext()) {
> >>>>>> Node n = it.next();
> >>>>>> System.out.println("Found foo in exact: "+n+":
> >>>>>> "+n.getProperty("foo"));
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> assertEquals(2, hits.size());
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> //Search fulltext
> >>>>>> qctx = QueryContext.numericRange("foo", 3, 25);
> >>>>>> hits = fulltextIndex.query(qctx);
> >>>>>> it = hits.iterator();
> >>>>>> while (it.hasNext()) {
> >>>>>> Node n = it.next();
> >>>>>> System.out.println("Found foo in fulltext: "+n+":
> >>>>>> "+n.getProperty("foo"));
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> assertEquals(2, hits.size());
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> tx.success();
> >>>>>> } finally {
> >>>>>> tx.finish();
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the "exact" configured index the range query returns two nodes,
> >>>>>> while in "fulltext" configured index I get no result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is there a way to use numeric range queries with fulltext indexes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for any hints,
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> balazs
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Neo4j mailing list
> >>>>>> User@lists.neo4j.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Neo4j mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Neo4j mailing list
> >> User@lists.neo4j.org
> >> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Neo4j mailing list
> User@lists.neo4j.org
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
--
Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com]
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
