Thanks for your reply. I am working with an index which is created separately. It is created with a StandardTokenizer. I have read there should be used the same tokenizer which the index was created with. Anyway, I have tried other tokenizers while consulting, such as the WhitespaceTokenizer, but the same results happen. So, does it boil down to the tokenizer which the index was created with?
Thanks a lot. Diego Ps. Yes, I was using Luke which works great. But anyway, things like <* dont work in any analyser -- don give me any results, although searching in the db gives me loads -- and also i can get those results (via searching other fields) on luke and i can see the text is there, the < and > are there. Erick Erickson wrote: > > Sure, your problem is probably that the query goes through an analyzer and > its associated tokenizer. Probably something like StandardAnalyzer which > "massages" the input and strips out most non-alphabetic characters,.... > except some. It tries to be smart about URLs, e-mail addresses, etc. > > If you're new, I recommend you use WhitespaceAnalyzer until you get > familiar > with what analyzers do for you. Be aware that WhitespaceAnalyzer does NOT > automatically lower-case your input, so "Which" won't match "which". It's > easy enough to make your own analyzer by subclassing of the standard ones. > The book "Lucene in Action " is valuable for this, although you should be > aware that it was written to the 1.4 codebase, so there are a few > differences. > > It is important that the analyzer you use at *index* time is compatible > with > the one you use at *query* time. Until you're more familiar with this, I > simply recommend you use the *same* analyzer at index time that you use at > search time. That'll give you more intuitive results. You'll want to > refine > the use of analyzers later... > > I also recommend that you get a copy of luke (google lucene luke). It will > allow you to examine your index, parse queries through the GUI, examine > the > effects of different analyzers on input etc. It's a great tool and one > that'll make your life much easier. > > Best > Erick > > > On 1/29/07, poeta simbolista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi there, this is my very first post at this forum... please be >> considerate >> :) >> >> Well, i have a problem when sending a query such as: >> >> +description:< >> >> Once the query is parsed, it returns me the empty String, which means the >> String "<" that i want to search for on the field description is ignored. >> If i use normal words then it is taken. Do you know why this could be? >> Thanks. >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-lucene.-tf3137405.html#a8694565 >> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problems-with-some-characters-tf3137405.html#a8707691 Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
