Hey everyone! I have a question/problem I hope some of you guys can help me with.

I have this case where i have put my self in a bit of trouble... The thing is i have several fields indexed, one being "source" and one being "content" (which is the default field), among other fields that are not really that important.

The thing is, the content field and most of the other fields are parsed and tokenized using a StandardAnalyzer with English stop words. So, this field (and most of the others) are lowercased when indexed, and thus search on these fields should be performed in lower case (or the best thing would of course be to use the same analyzer.)

The problem occurs when we examine the source field, because here, the field is case-sensitive, and thus search on this field need to be kept case-sensitive aswell, and it should not me tokenized on characters such as "-.," etc.

Now. How do i solve this?

I want the user to be able to search using the regular lucene Query Syntax. I.e., an input query like:
"my Search ExPresssiON goes here" AND source:(Some-Source)
I tried one thing, and that was to split the input query-string, parse the occurance of "source:", and then use two different parsers on the two parts, then combining them into a new query. But the problem is that this involves many different scenarios, and also parsing failure if i parse it into:
"my Search ExPressiON goes here" AND
source:(Some-Source)
The first will fail since it is an open boolean query missing the last part. Also, there is the problem with different writing styles, where sometimes the query can be complex like <arg1> AND (source:Some-Source OR source:Some-Source OR ...) AND <arg2> OR <arg3> ...
etc..

It really gives me an head-ache. Any ideas how i could solve this problem in the best manner?
All answers are highly appreciated!

- Aleksander

--
Aleksander M. Stensby
Senior Software Developer
Integrasco A/S

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to