On 8/1/06, Sam Giffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Dave, > Using the explain method proved it was definitely working. The boost > value I was using, 2.0, just wasn't enough to change the placing in the > test i was using.
Great. One thing I neglected to mention was that the field_norm value that you see in the Index#explain output is actually the field boost (I may change the name as it's not really clear). You'll notice that 1.0 and 2.0 get converted to 0.625 and 1.25 respectively. This is because the the boost gets compressed into a single byte so it looses a lot of it's precision. This is just something to keep in mind when setting boost values. > What are the (highlights of the) changes to the index that make it > incompatible with Luke? Just wondering what would be involved... The only thing staying the same is the field norms files. Everything else is changing so it wouldn't be worth doing it in Java using any of the existing Luke code. It'd have to be completely rewritten in Ruby. I haven't done any GUI stuff in ruby before so I'm not sure which library would be best. If anyone has any recommendations I could probably start something and then others could play around with it. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ Ferret-talk mailing list Ferret-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ferret-talk
