Any more idea? On 4/17/07, Mohammad Norouzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris, Thank you for your reply, your solution doesnt work in my case because I was thinking of indexing more than one document in a single index and each document representing a table in database. so if I put more than one document some fields for a single document will be empty. something like this: Document: field1 field2 field3 field4 test1 test2 test3 -- -- -- test5 test3 Document: field1 field2 field3 field4 f3f4 test1 test2 test3 -- ? -- -- test5 test3 ? On 4/16/07, Chris Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Query: > > > > field1:"test phrase" AND field2:"test" AND field3:field4 > > > > > > > > in this query we said that do search where field3 is equal to > > > > field4 ... > > > > (and rest of the query) > Regarding your query, I think you can simply query the database and > create a field, like f3f4, and set it to 1 if the value of field3 > equals that of field4, > and set it to 0 if otherwise. > > When you search, you can use "....AND f3f4:1..." > > This could be simpler than asking Lucene to do database job. > > -- > Chris Lu > ------------------------- > Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application > site: http://www.dbsight.net > demo: http://search.dbsight.com > Lucene Database Search in 3 minutes: > > http://wiki.dbsight.com/index.php?title=Create_Lucene_Database_Search_in_3_minutes > > On 4/15/07, Mohammad Norouzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, let me tell you what we're going to do. > > our information are too much. actually, we have a huge database for > > hospitals, and their services and their patients and also pharmacy > infos. > > > > just for test, we first joined some important tables and as you said > > de-normalized them and then tried to create an index. it was about 3 > > millions documents and surprisingly, we saw that using this system we > can > > achieve our goal in a few seconds, however, by using SQL statements it > took > > more than half an hour !!! so what did we want more? we just want to > reach > > our result and Lucene fulfils our needs. > > > > but we are not going to leave the database and throw it out. we need > Lucene > > in some special cases. in our case, reporting from whole informatin. > > > > but the problem is, because there are more tables (actually there are > more > > than 10 database views) so we decided to categorize information > and create > > a view for each category. and then index them individually. > > > > but we need to find some information on say, index2, where they have > > relation with say index1 > > > > Erick, your second way doesnt fulfil our needs because the information > are > > too complex. and the third one, yes we finally do that, but before > that we > > need to do some searching (with a complex query) on indexes so we need > many > > information on our indexes. > > > > I was thinking of building another table (table, I dont mean database > table, > > it can be every structure) that keeps lucene's internal ids and their > > relations with other indexes. and I tested it, now it works fine but > you > > know this internal ids will change once we call optimize() method. so > we > > should re-create them each time we update the index. (we do it every > other > > week) > > > > so if you had provided a feature for such problem to find the > relations > > between various indexes every thing was nice. > > > > I know this is not an aspect for Lucene, but in such situation it > would help > > and save the developers and users, specially when we were able to > disable or > > enable that feature depend on our needs. > > > > lots of thanks > > > > On 4/15/07, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > well, how much data are we talking about here? If your index > > > is already 100G, your options are much more limited than if > > > it's 1M... > > > > > > Essentially, you have several choices: > > > 1> de-normalize your data to whatever extent is "sufficient" > > > and index it. > > > 2> Try to do what amount to joins. If your needs aren't too complex, > > > you can probably do some interesting things with > > > TermEnum/TermDocs, but I should emphasize the word *simple* > > > in the relationships or else you'll be re-inventing an RDBMS > <G>. > > > 3> You can mix-n-match. That is, use Lucene to index searchable > > > data and use the database for some portion of your joins. > > > > > > Best > > > Erick > > > > > > > > > On 4/15/07, Mohammad Norouzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Karl, > > > > sorry I was on business vacation and could not reply soon. > > > > > > > > Ok, I want to index my database and search through the indexes, > and the > > > > tables in database are more than 50 and it's hard to joining them > and > > > then > > > > indexing. so I was thinking of indexing each table in a document > but in > > > > one > > > > index file and then make relations between them > > > > > > > > I know that Lucene is not a relational database but it really > helps us > > > to > > > > improve accessing our information and even generating reports. > > > > > > > > Even if this feature decline the performance, still it is better > than > > > > generating reports from SQL statements and the speed up accessing > > > > information. now our users are very satisfied by this. but we need > to > > > > create > > > > some relationship between documents. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/11/07, karl wettin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11 apr 2007 kl. 11.19 skrev Mohammad Norouzi: > > > > > > > > > > > is it possible (or a trickery way) to search with a given > query in > > > > > > which we > > > > > > can set an equality for two fields > > > > > > for example: > > > > > > > > > > > > Document: > > > > > > field1 > field2 field3 field4 > > > > > > > > > > > > Query: > > > > > > field1:"test phrase" AND field2:"test" AND field3:field4 > > > > > > > > > > > > in this query we said that do search where field3 is equal to > > > > > > field4 ... > > > > > > (and rest of the query) > > > > > > > > > > > > if it is not possible, can we ask it as a new feature from > Lucene > > > > > > developers? > > > > > > > > > > It could probably be done, but would be quite an expensive query > to > > > > > place. > > > > > > > > > > However, a request like this usually tiggers questions about the > > > > > > design of an index with such needs. There is probably a better > > > > > solution. Start by telling us about the data you have inserted > to the > > > > > index, and what it is you try to achieve. > > > > > > > > > > In essence, Lucene is not a relational database. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > karl > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Mohammad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > M. Norouzi > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, Mohammad
-- Regards, Mohammad
