This is all getting very complicated! Adrian - have you looked any further into why your original two term query was too slow? My experience is that simple queries are usually extremely fast. Standard questions: have you warmed up the searcher? How large is the index? How many occurrences of your first or second terms? Anything odd about them? See also http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveSearchingSpeed
-- Ian. On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > > Adrian Dimulescu wrote: > >> Thank you. >> >> I suppose the solution for this is to not create an index but to store >> co-occurence frequencies at Analyzer level. > > I don't understand how this would address the "docFreq does > not reflect deletions". > > You can use the shingles analyzer (under contrib/analyzers) > to create and index bigrams. (But the docFreq would still not > reflect deletions). > >> Adrian. >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael McCandless < >> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Be careful: docFreq does not take deletions into account. >>> > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org