Yes - they come back in the order indexed.
Erik
On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Yu-Hui Jin wrote:
BTW, Hoss, is there a default order for the documents returned by
running
this query?
thanks,
-Hui
On 8/16/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Any of you know whether
BTW, Hoss, is there a default order for the documents returned by running
this query?
thanks,
-Hui
On 8/16/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Any of you know whether the new q:*.* query performs better than the
: get-around solutions like using a ranged query? I would guess
: Any of you know whether the new q:*.* query performs better than the
: get-around solutions like using a ranged query? I would guess so, but I
: haven't looked into the Lucene implementation.
it's faster -- it has almost no work to do relative the range query
version.
-Hoss
Got it. Thanks Hoss!
regards,
-Hui
On 8/16/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Any of you know whether the new q:*.* query performs better than the
: get-around solutions like using a ranged query? I would guess so, but I
: haven't looked into the Lucene implementation.
it's
Hi Hui,
I'm not 100% certain but I believe this syntax was added in 1.2 (it
certainly works in the svn trunk code), can anyone confirm this?
cheers,
Piete
On 14/08/07, Yu-Hui Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piete,
I tried and it doesn't work for Solr 1.1. Is it supported for 1.2 or at
all?
On 8/15/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not 100% certain but I believe this syntax was added in 1.2 (it
certainly works in the svn trunk code), can anyone confirm this?
Yes, It was added to Lucene 2.1 (which Solr 1.2 uses)
Great. Thanks, guys. That's how what I thought.
Any of you know whether the new q:*.* query performs better than the
get-around solutions like using a ranged query? I would guess so, but I
haven't looked into the Lucene implementation.
regards,
-Hui
On 8/15/07, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Piete,
I tried and it doesn't work for Solr 1.1. Is it supported for 1.2 or at
all?
(Right now, I'm using a work-around by a range query for a field whose range
is known to be larger than 0.)
Thanks,
-Hui
On 8/12/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try using q=*:* to match all
Hi, there,
I found the following post on the web. Is this still the simplest get-around
to retrieve all documents in an index? (I'm asking just in case I don't know
there's a more standard way to do that now.)
thanks,
-Hui
From Fuad Efendi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject RE:
Try using q=*:* to match all documents in the index.
Piete
On 13/08/07, Yu-Hui Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, there,
I found the following post on the web. Is this still the simplest
get-around
to retrieve all documents in an index? (I'm asking just in case I don't
know
there's a
10 matches
Mail list logo