Lucene lets you sort by multiple fields, including score. See the
javadocs for Sort and SortField, specifically SortField.SCORE.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Ariel isaacr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi:
This solution have a problem.
the results are sorted bye the year criteria but I
Hi
Are all the queries broadly similar or are the later ones more
complex? What happens if you switch the order and run the later
queries first? Any complications like sorting? Has your jvm got
enough memory?
There is no IndexSearcher cache that you can increase.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Dec 17,
I am planning to keep indexing and searching in a single process and expose
the search functionality as a service.
In any case, i want the deletion to be done by reader, so that it could be
reflected immediately in search. If it is done by writer, then i need to
commit the changes, reopen the
I don't know of any. I'd google for Persian Lucene or Farsi
Lucene. When I did that, I did see some researchers who did some
experiments w/ Lucene and Persian.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Ian Vink wrote:
I have ported the Java version of the Arabic analyzer recently
committed to
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Patrick Johnstone
pjohnst...@dejavunet.net wrote:
As I said in the original email, my issue is that I don't
think Lucene is returning the fields in the original order
anymore.
Hmmm, you're right.
Somehow I seem to have missed (and can't find) your original mail, but
it seems like you're asking about using double metaphone for place
names. We've done this on our site (http://boston.povo.com) for street
and place names, and I can't say we've been happy with the results.
We're toying with
What I am doing is this:
code
Sort sort = new Sort();
sort.setSort(year, true);
hits = searcher.search(pquery,sort);
/code
How I must put my code to sort first by date an then by score ???
Greetings
Ariel
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Ian Lea
You will be stunned at how easy it is. The merging code should be
a dozen lines (and that only if you are merging 6 or so indexes)
See IndexWriter.addIndexes or
IndexWriter.addIndexesNoOptimize
Best
Erick
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Preetham Kajekar preet...@cisco.comwrote:
Hi,
I
Hi,
I think this should do it...
code
SortField dateSortField = new SortField(year, false);//the
second argument reverses the sort direction if set to true
SortField scoreSortField= new SortField(null, SortField.SCORE,
false); // value of null for field, since 'score' is not
Use the setSort that takes an array of Sort objects...
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Ariel isaacr...@gmail.com wrote:
What I am doing is this:
code
Sort sort = new Sort();
sort.setSort(year, true);
hits = searcher.search(pquery,sort);
/code
How I must
Thank you, it works very good.
Regards
Ariel
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.comwrote:
Use the setSort that takes an array of Sort objects...
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Ariel isaacr...@gmail.com wrote:
What I am doing is this:
code
Thanks. Yep the code is very easy. However, it take about 3 mins to
complete merging.
Looks like I will need to have an out of band merging of indexes once
they are closed (planning to store about 50mil entries in each index
partition)
However, as the data is being indexed, is there any
that makes it much faster (100ms after the first run). thanks alot.
also, the index will be updated oftenly throughout the day, will keeping the
indexreader open recognize updates to the index?
Sincerely,
Chris Salem
Development Team
Main Sequence Technologies, Inc.
PCRecruiter.net -
Hi,
I noticed that the doc id is the same. So, if I have HitCollector, just
collect the doc-ids of both Searchers (for the two indexes) and find the
intersection between them, it would work. Also, get the doc is even
where there are large number of hits is fast.
Of course, I am using
Op Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:49:08 schreef 1world1love:
Just an FYI in case anyone runs into something similar.
Essentially I had indexes that I have been searching from a java
stored procedure in Oracle without issue for awhile. All of a sudden,
I started getting the error I alluded to
I would think that if the place names are English, which those in Boston
would be, then they would be reasonable candidates for soundex and
double metaphone. I am considering an approach where I store SOUNDEX,
refined SOUNDEX, doublemetaphone, and I'll look into ngram as well, and
search against
These results are surprising.
I'd expect single IndexWriter with 2 threads to do better than a
single thread, but in your test two threads are significantly worse
than one.
Is it possible there's a bottleneck outside of Lucene in sourcing the
documents?
How many segments are produced
I would recommend, very strongly, that you don't rely on the doc IDs being
the same in two different indexes. Doc IDs are just incremented by one
for each doc added, but.
optimization can change the doc ID. and is guaranteed to change at
least some of them if there are deletions from your
Hi -
I am just curious - what is the approximate release target date that we have
for Lucene 2.9 ( currently in beta in dev).
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Hi:
In lucene 2.4, when Field.omitTF() is called, payload is disabled as
well. Is this intentional? My understanding is payload is independent from
the term frequencies.
Thanks
-John
Drops positions as well.
- Mark
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:57 PM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi:
In lucene 2.4, when Field.omitTF() is called, payload is disabled as
well. Is this intentional? My understanding is payload is
independent from
the term frequencies.
Thanks
-John
Well... there are a couple threads on java-dev discussing this now:
http://www.nabble.com/2.9-3.0-plan---Java-1.5-td20972994.html
http://www.nabble.com/2.9,-3.0-and-deprecation-td20099343.html
though they seem to have petered out.
Also we have 29 open issues for 2.9:
Thanks Mark!I don't think it is documented (at least the ones I've read),
should this be considered as a bug or ... ?
Thanks
-John
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Drops positions as well.
- Mark
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:57 PM, John Wang
No, not a bug, certainly its the intended behavior (though the name is a
bit tricky isn't it? I've actually thought about that in the past
myself). If you check out the javadoc on Fieldable youll find:
/** Expert:
*
* If set, omit term freq, positions and payloads from postings for
this
Ok. This is crazy. I have an index with 14,488,449 docs in it. Today I did a
CheckIndex on it and everything looked fine. I made a copy of the index, ran
a delete on about 1.3 million docs and then did an optimize and now my doc
count is 38449.
The index was originally built with 2.3, but I am
Does Lucene 2.9 has real time search? Any improvements in sorting? Any
facility to store a payload per document (without updating document)?
Please highlight the important feature?
Regards
Ganesh
- Original Message -
From: Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com
To:
Optimize will remove the deletes and rearrange the document numbers.
Have you done some deletes before deleting 1.3 million docs?
Regards
Ganesh
- Original Message -
From: 1world1love jd_co...@yahoo.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:49 AM
Subject:
Ganesh - yahoo wrote:
Optimize will remove the deletes and rearrange the document numbers.
Have you done some deletes before deleting 1.3 million docs?
No, that is the crazy part. I haven't done anything to this index since it
was first compiled until I did the deletes. That is why I
Well look at the issues and see for yourself :)
Its a subjective call I think. Heres my take:
There are not going to be too many sweeping changes in the next release.
There are tons of little bug fixes and improvements, but not a lot of
the bullet point type stuff that you mention in your
Mark Miller wrote:
TrieRangeQuery has been added to contrib. Super awesome, super
efficient, large scale sorting.
Sorry. Its way past my bedtime. Large scale numerical range searching.
Sorting on the brain.
-
To
Thanks Mark for the pointer!
-John
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
No, not a bug, certainly its the intended behavior (though the name is a
bit tricky isn't it? I've actually thought about that in the past myself).
If you check out the javadoc on
31 matches
Mail list logo
