Well I figured it out... After getting Luke I was able to see that the values were all being indexed correctly. The problem came when take the ids from the index and running it agains the database. It was in fact searching the db on the Lucene indices instead of the db index. A simple parse and it works.
I would like to thank you for your help. Doron Cohen wrote: > >> I have updated my doc.add() to use Store.YES... > > So I understand this did not help. > >> I am currently searching for "test" which makes 'search' = "test*'. Also > I >> do not remember the exact string for 'searchText' but it did start with >> "test" in one occurrence. > >> I can use the debugger (and step through the index process) and see that >> there is at least one occurence where a 'searchText' is added which > contains >> "test". The problem though is that this one is not in the results when >> searching. Mean that I have found that these values are indexed (as far > as >> I know - indexWriter adds it), but when searching against them, they are > not >> coming up in the search. > > I am not aware of differences with prefix queries that could cause this, > perhaps others in the list (btw this seems more like a 'user list' issue > than a 'dev list' issue) have an idea. > > ... mmm ... just a thought - after changing to Store.YES, did you start > the > "test" from scratch, or did you continue to use an existing index> Because > if your application has the logic of updating an index by searching for a > document, then modifying the document found at search (e.g. adding a > field), then adding the modified document to the index - this would not > work if that document was already added to the index with Store.NO. Just a > thought. > > Otherwise I can think of 3 ways to proceed: > > 1) use Luke to examine the content of the index. See what tokens are there > really in the index: is the document in question listed for the tokens you > expect it to be listed? > > 2) print the query before the search that fails to find that document: > does > it contain the tokens you expect it to? Do they match with what you saw > with Luke? > > 3) provide here a short and simple stand-alone program that demonstrates > the problem. My experience is that I often learn more on the problem (and > on Lucene) from just trying to reproduce the problem in an isolated > manner. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Upgrading-1.4-to-2.0---Indexing-Issue.-tf2358182.html#a6604601 Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
