: It works like this: "A -B -C" would be expressed as "A ! B ! C"
: By binary, I mean that each operator must connect two clauses...in that
: case A is connected to B and C is connected to A ! B.
: I avoid the single prohibit clause issue, -query, by not really allowing
so do you convert A ! B ! C into a three clause boolean query, or a two
clause BooleanQuery that contains another two clause BooleanQuery?
It becomes a three clause boolean query...would there be a difference in
scoring? I assumed not and it used to make a boolean that contained
another boolean...these days it checks to see if its in a chain of the
same operator and makes only one boolean.
: I will add this...a field search is: field1,field2(foo) | field3(foobar)
is that field1,field2(foo) construct a DisjunctionMaxQuery or just a
BooleanQuery?
Just a boolean right now. I will have to look at DisjuntionMaxQuery.
Currently its just a boolean: +field1:foo +field2:foo
: 1.0 release but was hoping for some syntax suggestions -- though I'm
: betting people are happy with Lucene's syntax for this.
yeah, "^" is pretty straight forward
incidently: what was there a motivating factor behind the mixed use of
both ~ and : to denote slop?
':' is for slop on a phrase query. "the car is burning so get out":2
will allow for each word to be within 2.
'~' is a binary operator...mark ~4 postman...or say: (mark ~5 (horse &
car) ~6 tom brady | "hard knocks dude":3) ~6 garbage
Phrase slop could be specified with the '~' op too: the ~2 car ~2 is
~burning ~2 so ~2 get ~2 out : but that is a pain in the butt.
Also, '~' is needed for paragraph and sentence prox searches: (old
crooner) ~3p johnny
- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
