Is it possible to make search among results of previous search?
For example: I made search:
Searcher searcher =...
Query query = ...
Hits hits =
hits = Searcher.search(query);
After it I want to not make a new search, I want to make search among found
2006/3/7, Anton Potehin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is it possible to make search among results of previous search?
For example: I made search:
Searcher searcher =...
Query query = ...
Hits hits =
hits = Searcher.search(query);
After it I want to not make a new search,
Prasenjit Mukherjee wrote:
I think nutch has a distributed lucene implementation. I could have
used nutch straightaway, but I have a different crawler, and also dont
want to use NDFS(which is used by nutch) . What I have proposed
earlier is basically based on mapReduce paradigm, which is used
As far as I understood that will make new search throughout the index. But
what the difference between that and search described below:
TermQuery termQuery = new TermQuery(
BooleanQuery bq = ..
bq.add(termQuery,true,false);
bq.add(query,true,false);
hits = Searcher.search(bq,queryFilter);
Hi,
I have downloaded the latest release lucene 1.9.I have deployed in
tomcat.
When i search from the front end.It gives me the message.Please tell me
how to use lucene 1.9 .
Welcome to the Lucene Template application. (This is the header)
Document Summary
null
Hi,
I would like to by-pass the IndexWriter and directly write the terms and
their frequencies to the index (and may proximity info later on). I
might have missed any discussion if previously. As far as I know, the
high level API in Lucene only allows you to add documents (which are
populated
On Mar 7, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Eric Jain wrote:
Daniel Naber wrote:
Please try to add this to MultiPhraseQuery and let us know if it
helps:
public List getTerms() {
return termArrays;
}
That is indeed all I need (the list wouldn't have to be mutable
though). Any chance this could be
It uses cache mechanism. The detail is described in the book Lucene in
Action. Maybe you can test it to decide which is faster
2006/3/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As far as I understood that will make new search throughout the index. But
what the difference between that and search
Hello,
anyone implement the Google Suggest Feature using Lucene? The Frontend
is clear - but i need a very fast way to retrieve matching terms. For
example: The user typed Ab and i want to give him a list of 10
possible words in term name starting with Ab*. So i don't need the
hole document
Hi,
From: Thomas Papke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone implement the Google Suggest Feature using Lucene?
The Frontend is clear - but i need a very fast way to
retrieve matching terms. For
example: The user typed Ab and i want to give him a list of
10 possible words in term name
Hi,
From: Thomas Papke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone implement the Google Suggest Feature using Lucene?
The Frontend is clear - but i need a very fast way to
retrieve matching terms. For
example: The user typed Ab and i want to give him a list of
10 possible words in term name
I've created an index with the Lucene version 1.9 and when I try to open
this index I have always this error mesage:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
if I use an index built with the lucene version 1.4.3 it's working.
Wath's wrong?
Hi,
From: Leon Chaddock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am very interested in this aswell, as I wish to display
related searches for users.
What does related mean?
Does anyone know if this work is open source and is there an
api available?
Ask David or use web.archive:
We've done this, and it's not that complex. (Sorry, client won't allow me
to release the code.)
It's AJAX on the front end, so that background call is simply executing a
search against an index that consists of the aggregated search terms. We do
wildcard queries to get the results we want. For
On Mar 7, 2006, at 7:03 AM, hu andy wrote:
It uses cache mechanism. The detail is described in the book Lucene in
Action. Maybe you can test it to decide which is faster
Major caveat here is that the caching QueryFilter employs really only
works if you use the same instance of QueryFilter
Anton Potehin wrote:
Now I create new search for get number of results. For example:
IndexSearcher is = ...
Query q = ...
numberOfResults = Is.search(q).length();
Can I accelerate this example ? And how ?
Perhaps something like:
class CountingHitCollector
implements HitCollector
{
Anton Potehin wrote:
After it I want to not make a new search,
I want to make search among found results...
Perhaps something like this would work:
final BitSet results = toBitSet(Hits);
searcher.search(newQuery, new Filter() {
public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader) {
return results;
Hi,
I was building the Lucene 1.9.1 source code. I have received the
following error msg:
Unreported exceptions: java.io.IOException must be caught or declared
to be thrown. in class SpanOrQuery, line number 154.
Any ideas how to resolve it?
Regards,
Murat
While you added if (score 0.0f). Javadoc contain lines
HitCollector.collect(int,float) is called for every non-zero scoring.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:08 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Get only count
While you added if (score 0.0f). Javadoc contain lines
HitCollector.collect(int,float) is called for every non-zero scoring.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:08 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Get only count
Thomas,
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 13:57, WATHELET Thomas wrote:
I've created an index with the Lucene version 1.9 and when I try to open
this index I have always this error mesage:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
if I use an index built with the lucene version 1.4.3 it's working.
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While you added if (score 0.0f). Javadoc contain lines
HitCollector.collect(int,float) is called for every non-zero scoring.
That should probably read is called for every matching document.
-Yonik
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 15:35, Murat Yakici wrote:
Hi,
I was building the Lucene 1.9.1 source code. I have received the
following error msg:
Unreported exceptions: java.io.IOException must be caught or declared
to be thrown. in class SpanOrQuery, line number 154.
Any ideas how to
Can have matching document score equals zero ?
-Original Message-
From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:20 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Get only count
Importance: High
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While
Can have matching document score equals zero ?
-Original Message-
From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:20 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Get only count
Importance: High
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While
Hi,
I am using Lucene 1.9.1 to index the files. The index writer created
the following files
(1) segment file segments
(2) deletable file deletable
(3) compound file cfs
None of the other files like term info, frequency..etc were created. Is
there something obvious, I am doing wrong?
The compiler is Sun Java 1.4.2_08.
Paul Elschot wrote:
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 15:35, Murat Yakici wrote:
Hi,
I was building the Lucene 1.9.1 source code. I have received the
following error msg:
Unreported exceptions: java.io.IOException must be caught or declared
to be thrown. in
You are using the compound file format (the default since 1.4) and the
.cfs file contains all those individual parts.
-Yonik
On 3/7/06, Apache Lucene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am using Lucene 1.9.1 to index the files. The index writer created
the following files
(1) segment file
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can have matching document score equals zero ?
Yes. Scorers don't generally use score to determine if a document
matched the query.
Scores = 0.0f are currently screened out at the top level search
functions, but not when you use a
Is it advisable to use compound file format? or should I revert it back to
simple file format? How do I revert it back?
thanks,
lucenenator
On 3/7/06, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are using the compound file format (the default since 1.4) and the
.cfs file contains all those
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 16:34, Murat Yakici wrote:
The compiler is Sun Java 1.4.2_08.
I'm using sun javac 1.5.0_01 and this compiles the current trunk without
any problems, so I cannot reproduce the error msg.
The common-build.xml file uses source and target 1.4 for javac,
(in the compile
On Mar 7, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Apache Lucene wrote:
Is it advisable to use compound file format? or should I revert it
back to
simple file format? How do I revert it back?
There is a setter on IndexWriter to set it back if you like. The
compound format avoids the issues that cropped up a
Yeah, I know, sorry for that.
The reason is, first I tried to solve the problem by wrapping the line
with a try-catch block. Then, the next build gave the same error for
SpanTermQuery and some other classes.
I will try to compile that on 1.5.0_01.
Thanks,
Murat
Paul Elschot wrote:
On
Hello,
I want to use Lucene to get similar documents based on a Boolean Query
(similar metadata with OR clauses) and ratings of the user for already
searched documents.
I intend to implement a Naive Bayes classifier to categorize documents
into liked/disliked classes and would do this by using a
This line is throwing a null pointer exception for the index I created as I
mentioned in my previous emails.
searcher = new IndexSearcher(IndexReader.open(indexPath) );
Any ideas? I made sure the indexPath is a valid path.
thanks,
lucenenator
On 3/7/06, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Query at = new TermQuery(new Term(alwaysTrueField,true));
Query user = queryParser.parse(userInput);
if (user instanceof BooleanQuery) {
BooleanQuery bq = (BooleanQuery)user;
if (! usableBooleanQuery(bq)) {
bq.add(at, true, false); /* add 'always true' clause
BTW, I could access that index using Luke. It works fine.
On 3/7/06, Apache Lucene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This line is throwing a null pointer exception for the index I created as
I mentioned in my previous emails.
searcher = new IndexSearcher(IndexReader.open(indexPath) );
Any ideas?
Hello,
I have been trying out Yonik's excellent FunctionQuery (from Solr),
but am having some problems regarding the scoring of FunctionQueries
in conjunction with other queries.
I am currently researching a data fusion approach, where you have
several separate scores for a document and combine
WATHELET Thomas wrote:
I've created an index with the Lucene version 1.9 and when I try to open
this index I have always this error mesage:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
if I use an index built with the lucene version 1.4.3 it's working.
Wath's wrong?
Are you perhaps trying to open
I ran a query performance tester against 8-cpu and 16-cpu Xeon servers
(16/32 cpu hyperthreaded). on Linux. Here are the results:
8-cpu: 275 qps
16-cpu: 305 qps
(the dual-core Opteron servers are still faster)
Here is the stack trace of 8 of the 16 query threads during the test:
at
Peter Keegan wrote:
I ran a query performance tester against 8-cpu and 16-cpu Xeon servers
(16/32 cpu hyperthreaded). on Linux. Here are the results:
8-cpu: 275 qps
16-cpu: 305 qps
(the dual-core Opteron servers are still faster)
Here is the stack trace of 8 of the 16 query threads during the
Hi,
Just curious about this:
We hacked :-) IndexWriter of Lucene to start all segment names with a
prefix unique for each small index part.
Then, when adding it to the actual index, we simply copy the new segment
to the folder with the other segments, and add it in such a way so that
the
Hello,
I'm using Lucene 1.9 to replace an in-house search engine where all of the
documents to be searched are also created in-house. One of the features of the
search engine is something called 'xtras' which are associated with the
documents. I am wondering how best to model this feature using
Satuluri, Venu_Madhav wrote:
If you want this to work, the most elegant way I've found is to
override
the getBooleanQuery(Vector) method in QueryParser and insert a
MatchAllDocsQuery into the boolean query if every clause is
prohibited.
Daniel
I tried this, but it looks like the overridden
I recently converted from Lucene 1.4.3 to 1.9.1 and in the processed
replaced all deprecated classes with the new ones as recommended (for
forward compatibility with Lucene 2.0).
This however seems to introduce an incompatibilty when the new
timeToString() and stringToTime() classes are used.
Anton Potehin wrote:
Is it possible to make search among results of previous search?
removed all the double spacing
After it I want to not make a new search, I want to make search among
found results...
Simple. Create a new BooleanQuery and put the original query into it,
along with the
Hello,
: I upgade to 1.9.1 and reindexing
: I used NumberTool when I index the number.
:
: after upgrade I got following error when number range query.
: with query
The possibility of a TooManyClauses exception has always existed with
RangeQuery and numbers, even when using
: You mean Theoritically
: RangeQuery should be forbidden because it always has potential time bomb ?
: Should we comment it in javadoc ?
In my opinion, the only reason to use RangeQuery is if you are dealing
with very controlled ranges, where you know hte number of terms it will
expand to is
: timeToString() and stringToTime() classes are used. Using an index created
: with 1.4.3 and searched with 1.9.1 I now receive the following errors:
As the deprecation comment in DateField says...
If you build a new index, use DateTools instead. For existing indices
you
can
Thanks Chris for making it clear, I had read the comment but I had not
understood that it implied incompatibility. But will the code be preserved
in Lucene 2.0, in light of the comment contained in the Lucene 1.9.1
announcement ?
QUOTE
Applications must compile against 1.9 without deprecation
Hi,
Sure not. We created another IndexWriter class and modified its function
addIndexes (if I remember the function name correctly) so it will not
call to optimize at the end - that's all.
Having unique segment names was necessary because the segment file name
is used inside the file itself, and
51 matches
Mail list logo
