: ( : +( : (+raimonds +marschan) : (+raimonds +marschol) : (+raimonds +marschel) : (+raimonds +marschalfr) : (+raimonds +marschalek) : (+raimonds +marscha) : ... : ) : +(ZIPS:22* ZIPS:21* ZIPS:20* ZIPS:23* ZIPS:245* : ZIPS:246* ZIPS:247* ZIPS:240* ZIPS:241* ZIPS:242* : ZIPS:243* ZIPS:254* ZIPS:253* ZIPS:255* ZIPS:256* : ZIPS:257* ZIPS:295* ZIPS:296* ZIPS:273* ZIPS:274* : ZIPS:275* ZIPS:276* ZIPS:192* ZIPS:190*) : )
independent of how short/long your documents are, using RangeFilters on your ZIPS field is going to be more efficient then PrevixQueries ... I'd bet money it will even be more efficient then making a two character prefix_ZIPS field and doing a TermQuery on it -- and there's no reason not to use a Filter if you dont' care about the score. take a look at RangeFilter in SVN, even if you are using 1.4.3 it should be combatible. Also take a look at ChainedFilter as a way to compose lots of individual RangeFilters... http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/lucene/java/trunk/contrib/miscellaneous/src/java/org/apache/lucene/misc/ChainedFilter.java You can probably get additional speed ups by using Filters on whatever your default name search field is, google for "lucene Hoss SetFilter" to see a previous discussion where i suggested something similar. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
