Hi Boris, > That is ok, and i can see this case would be best with BoostQuery and > also i dont have to use lucene expression jar and its dependents. > > However, i am curious how to do this kind of field based boosting at > index time even though i will prefer the query time boosting methodology.
The reason why it was deprecated is exactly the problem I mentioned before: It did never do what the user expected. The boost factor given in the document's field was multiplied into the per document norms. Unfortunately, at the same time, he query normalization was using query statistics and normalized the scores. As Lucene is working per field, the same normalization is done per field, resulting in the constant factor per field to disappear. There was still some effect of index time boosting if different documents had different values, but it your case all is the same. I am not sure how your queries worked before, but the constant boost factors per field at index time did definitely not have the effect you were thinking of. Since the earliest version of Lucene, boosting at query time was the way to go to have different weights per field. The new feature in Lucene is now that you can change the score per document using docvalues and apply that per document at query time. Previously this was also possible with Document/Field#setBoost, but the flexibility was missing (only multiplying and limited precision). In addition the normalization effects made the whole thing not reliable. Uwe > Best regards > > > On 10/21/19 12:54 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As I said, before that is a misuse of index-time boosting. In addition in > previous versions it did not even work correctly, because of query > normalization it was normalized away anyways. And on top, to change it > your have to reindex. > > > > What you intend to do is a typical use case for query time boosting with > BoostQuery. That is explained in almost every book about search, like those > about Solr or Elasticsearch. > > > > Most query parsers also allow to also add boost factors for fields, e.g. > SimpleQueryParser (for humans that need simple syntax without fields). > There you give a list of fields and boost factors. > > > > Uwe > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.thetaphi.de&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIr > MUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=r7LRZQV82ywkycV4mBw1baHDKxar0wnm > JtLLTiUC0wI&s=Zj32e0QqmZFvPbBlD8DPeh7KHYfOgQr89wvmaRvy_n8&e= > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: baris.ka...@oracle.com <baris.ka...@oracle.com> > >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 6:45 PM > >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Cc: baris.kazar <baris.ka...@oracle.com> > >> Subject: Re: Index-time boosting: Deprecated setBoost method > >> > >> Hi,- > >> > >> Thanks and i appreciate the disccussion. > >> > >> Let me please ask this way, i think i give too much info at one time: > >> > >> Currently i have this: > >> > >> Field f1= new TextField("field1", "string1", Field.Store.YES); > >> > >> doc.add(f1); f1.setBoost(2.0f); > >> > >> Field f2 = new TextField("field2", "string2", Field.Store.YES); > >> > >> doc.add(f2); > >> > >> f2.setBoost(1.0f); > >> > >> > >> But this fails with Lucene 7.7.2. > >> > >> > >> Probably it is more efficient and more flexible to fix this by using > >> BoostQuery. > >> > >> However, what could be the fix with index time boosting? the code in my > >> previous post was trying to do that. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> > >> On 10/21/19 12:34 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> sorry I don't fully understand what you intend to do? If the boost values > >> per field are static and used with exactly same value for every document, > it's > >> not needed a index time. You can just boost the field on the query side > (e.g. > >> using BoostQuery). Boosting every document with the same static values > is > >> an anti-pattern, that's something better suited for the query side - as you > are > >> more flexible. > >>> If you need a different boost value per document, you can save that > boost > >> value in the index per document using a docvalues field (this consumes > extra > >> space, of course). Then you need the ExpressionQuery on the query side. > But > >> just because it looks like Javascript, it's not slow. The syntax is > >> compiled to > >> bytecode and directly included into the query execution as a dynamic java > >> class, so it's very fast. > >>> In short: > >>> - If you need to have a different boost factor per field name that's > constant > >> for all documents, apply it at query time with BoostQuery. > >>> - If you have to boost specific documents (e.g., top selling products), > index > >> a numeric docvalues field per document. On the query side you can use > >> different query types to modify the score of each result based on the > >> docvalues field. That can be done with Expression modules (using > compiled > >> Javascript) or by another query in Lucene that operates on ValueSource > (e.g., > >> FunctionQuery). The first one is easier to use for complex formulas.4 > >>> Uwe > >>> > >>> ----- > >>> Uwe Schindler > >>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> > 3A__www.thetaphi.de&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIr > >> MUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=70RoM6loHhMGsp95phVzGQf8w5JxW7gX > >> T5XnleMKrOs&s=td7cUfd22mXljSuvkUPXDunkIs_eO4GxdvHHxD2CTk0&e= > >>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: baris.ka...@oracle.com <baris.ka...@oracle.com> > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 5:17 PM > >>>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > >>>> Cc: baris.kazar <baris.ka...@oracle.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: Index-time boosting: Deprecated setBoost method > >>>> > >>>> Hi,- > >>>> > >>>> Sorry about the missing parts in previous post. please accept my > >>>> apologies for that. > >>>> > >>>> i needed to add a few more questions/corrections/additions to the > >>>> previous post: > >>>> > >>>> Main Question was: if boost is a single constant value, do we need the > >>>> Javascript part below? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> === Indexing code snippet for Lucene version 6.6.0 and before=== > >>>> > >>>> Document doc = new Document(); > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Field f1= new TextField("field1", "string1", Field.Store.YES); > >>>> > >>>> doc.add(f1); f1.setBoost(2.0f); > >>>> > >>>> Field f2 = new TextField("field2", "string2", Field.Store.YES); > >>>> > >>>> doc.add(f2); > >>>> > >>>> f2.setBoost(1.0f); > >>>> > >>>> === end of indexing code snippet for Lucene version 6.6.0 and before > === > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This turns into this where _boost1 field is associated with field1 and > >>>> > >>>> _boost2 field is associated with field2 field: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In Indexing code: > >>>> > >>>> === begining of indexing code snippet === > >>>> Field f1= new TextField("field1", "string1", Field.Store.YES); > >>>> > >>>> Field _boost1 = new NumericDocValuesField(“field1”, 2L); > >>>> doc.add(_boost1); > >>>> > >>>> // If this boost value needs to be stored, a separate storedField > >>>> instance needs to be added as well > >>>> … ( i will post this soon) > >>>> > >>>> Field _boost2 = new NumericDocValuesField(“field2”, 1L); > >>>> doc.add(_boost2); > >>>> > >>>> // If this boost value needs to be stored, a separate storedField > >>>> instance needs to be added as well > >>>> … ( i will post this soon) > >>>> > >>>> === end of indexing code snippet === > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Now, in the searching code (i.e., at query time) should i need the > >>>> FunctionScoreQuery because in this case > >>>> > >>>> the boost is just a constant value but not a function? However, constant > >>>> value can be argued to be a function with the same value all the time, > too. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> == begining of query time code snippet === > >>>> Expression expr = JavascriptCompiler.compile(“_boost1 + _boost2"); > >>>> > >>>> // SimpleBindings just maps variables to SortField instances > >>>> > >>>> SimpleBindings bindings = new SimpleBindings(); > >>>> > >>>> bindings.add(new SortField("_boost1", SortField.Type.LONG)); // > >> These > >>>> have to LONG type i think since NumericDocValuesField accepts "long" > >>>> type only, am i right? Can this be DOUBLE type? > >>>> > >>>> bindings.add(new SortField("_boost2", SortField.Type.LONG)); // > >> same > >>>> question here > >>>> > >>>> // create a query that matches based on body:contents but > >>>> > >>>> // scores using expr > >>>> > >>>> Query query = new FunctionScoreQuery( > >>>> > >>>> new TermQuery(new Term("field1", "term_to_look_for")), > >>>> > >>>> expr.getDoubleValuesSource(bindings)); > >>>> > >>>> searcher.search(query, 10); > >>>> > >>>> === end of code snippet === > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/21/19 11:05 AM, baris.ka...@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>> Hi,- > >>>>> > >>>>> i would like to ask the following to make it clearer (for me at > >>>>> least): > >>>>> > >>>>> Document doc = new Document(); > >>>>> > >>>>> Field f1= new TextField("field1", "string1", Field.Store.YES); > >>>>> > >>>>> doc.add(f1); f1.setBoost(2.0f); > >>>>> > >>>>> Field f2 = new TextField("field2", "string2", Field.Store.YES); > >>>>> > >>>>> doc.add(f2); > >>>>> > >>>>> f2.setBoost(1.0f); > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This turns into this where _boost1 field is associated with field1 and > >>>>> > >>>>> _boost2 field is associated with field2 field: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> In Indexing code: > >>>>> > >>>>> Field f1= new TextField("field1", "string1", Field.Store.YES); > >>>>> > >>>>> Field _boost1 = new NumericDocValuesField(“field1”, 2L); > >>>>> doc.add(_boost1); > >>>>> > >>>>> // If this boost value needs to be stored, a separate storedField > >>>>> instance needs to be added as well > >>>>> … ( i will post this soon) > >>>>> > >>>>> Field _boost2 = new NumericDocValuesField(“field2”, 1L); > >>>>> doc.add(_boost2); > >>>>> > >>>>> // If this boost value needs to be stored, a separate storedField > >>>>> instance needs to be added as well > >>>>> … ( i will post this soon) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, in the searching code (i.e., at query time) should i need the > >>>>> FunctionScoreQuery because in this case > >>>>> > >>>>> the boost is just a constant value but not a function? However, > >>>>> constant value can be argued to be a function with the same value all > >>>>> the time, too. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Expression expr = JavascriptCompiler.compile(“_boost"); > >>>>> > >>>>> // SimpleBindings just maps variables to SortField instances > >>>>> > >>>>> SimpleBindings bindings = new SimpleBindings(); > >>>>> > >>>>> bindings.add(new SortField("_boost1", SortField.Type.SCORE)); > >>>>> > >>>>> // create a query that matches based on body:contents but > >>>>> > >>>>> // scores using expr > >>>>> > >>>>> Query query = new FunctionScoreQuery( > >>>>> > >>>>> new TermQuery(new Term("field1", "term_to_look_for")), > >>>>> > >>>>> expr.getDoubleValuesSource(bindings)); > >>>>> > >>>>> searcher.search(query, 10); > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, if boost is a single constant value, do we need the Javascript > >>>>> part above? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 10/18/19 4:07 PM, baris.ka...@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>>> Uwe,- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> can this > >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>> 3A__lucene.apache.org_core_7-5F7- > >>>> > >> > 5F2_expressions_org_apache_lucene_expressions_Expression.html&d=DwID > >> > aQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdI > >>>> bQAiX- > >>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=MR2S9Z9HEge6s665mtGOFRHKGmuiVYkjp > >>>> 4tXOciYl7A&s=tMCjb5H5KivfJsp-BfABonpjelgp6hn9cBg2GScCmic&e= > >>>>>> doc example that You also gave be extended with > >> NumericDocValuesField > >>>>>> part that needs to be done at indexing time boosting, too? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> i see now why You meant that this is mixed type of boosting (i.e., > >>>>>> both indexing time and search time). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I need then include this query mentioned in this example on these > >>>>>> _score field (i would call it _boost field in my case) into my > >>>>>> overall BooleanQuery. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> i will now try to combine these together and post here for future > help. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/18/19 3:18 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Read my original email! The index time values are written using > >>>>>>> NumericDocValuesField. The expressions docs also refer to that > when > >>>>>>> the bindings are documented. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's separate from the indexed data (TextField). Think of it like an > >>>>>>> additional numeric field in your database table with a factor in > >>>>>>> each row. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Uwe > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Am October 18, 2019 7:14:03 PM UTC schrieb > baris.ka...@oracle.com: > >>>>>>>> Uwe,- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Two questions there: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> i guess this is applicable to TextField, too. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And i was expecting a index writer object in the example for index > >>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> boosting. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 10/18/19 2:57 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Sorry I was imprecise. It's a mix of both. The factors are stored > per > >>>>>>>> document in index (this is why I called it index time). During query > >>>>>>>> time the expression use the index time values to fold them into the > >>>>>>>> query boost at query time. > >>>>>>>>> What's your problem with that approach? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Uwe > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Am October 18, 2019 6:50:40 PM UTC schrieb > >> baris.ka...@oracle.com: > >>>>>>>>>> Uwe,- > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, if possible i am looking for a pure Java methodology > >>>>>>>>>> to do > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> index time boosting. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This example looks like a search time boosting example: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>> 3A__lucene.apache.org_core_7-5F7- > >>>> > >> > 5F2_expressions_org_apache_lucene_expressions_Expression.html&d=DwIF > >> > aQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdI > >>>> bQAiX- > >>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6m6i5zZXPZNP6DyVv_xG4vXnVTPEdfKLeLS > >>>> vGjEXbyw&s=B5_kGwRIbAoGqL0-SVR9r3t78E5XUuzLT37TeyV-bv8&e= > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/19 2:31 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a working example for this? Is this mentioned in the > >>>>>>>> Lucene > >>>>>>>>>>>> Javadocs or any other docs so that i can look it? > >>>>>>>>>>> To index the docvalues, see NumericDocValuesField (it can be > >>>> added > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> documents like indexed or stored fields). You may have used > them > >>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> sorting already. > >>>>>>>>>>>> this methodology seems sort of like discouraging using index > >> time > >>>>>>>>>> boosting. > >>>>>>>>>>> Not really. Many use this all the time. It's one of the killer > >>>>>>>>>> features of both Solr and Elasticsearch. The problem was how > the > >>>>>>>>>> Document.setBoost()worked (it did not work correctly, see > below). > >>>>>>>>>>>> Previous setBoost method call was fine and easy to use. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Did it have some performance issues and then is that why it > was > >>>>>>>>>> deprecated? > >>>>>>>>>>> No the reason for deprecating this was for several reasons: > >>>>>>>> setBoost > >>>>>>>>>> was not doing what the user had expected. Internally the boost > >> value > >>>>>>>>>> was just multiplied into the document norm factor (which is > >>>>>>>> internally > >>>>>>>>>> also a docvalues field). The norm factors are only very inprecise > >>>>>>>>>> floats stored in a byte, so precision is not well. If you put some > >>>>>>>>>> values into it and the length norm was already consuming all > bits, > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> boosting was very coarse. It was also only multiplied into and > most > >>>>>>>>>> users want to do some stuff like record click counts in the index > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> then boost for example with the logarithm or some other > function. > >> If > >>>>>>>>>> the boost is just multiplied into the length norm you have no > >>>>>>>>>> flexibility at all. > >>>>>>>>>>> In addition you can have several docvalues fields and use their > >>>>>>>>>> values in a function (e.g. one field with click count and another > >>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>> with product price). After that you can combine click count and > >>>>>>>> price > >>>>>>>>>> (which can be modified indipenently during index updates) and > >>>> change > >>>>>>>>>> boost to boost lower price and higher click count up. > >>>>>>>>>>> This is what you can do with the expressions module. You just > >> give > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> a function. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here is an example, the second example is using a > >>>>>>>> FunctionScoreQuery > >>>>>>>>>> that modifies the score based on the function and the given > >>>>>>>> docvalues: > >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>> 3A__lucene.apache.org_core_7-5F7- > >>>> > >> > 5F2_expressions_org_apache_lucene_expressions_Expression.html&d=DwIF > >> > aQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdI > >>>> bQAiX- > >>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6m6i5zZXPZNP6DyVv_xG4vXnVTPEdfKLeLS > >>>> vGjEXbyw&s=B5_kGwRIbAoGqL0-SVR9r3t78E5XUuzLT37TeyV-bv8&e= > >>>>>>>>>>>> FunctionScoreQuery usage with MultiFieldQueryParser would > >> also > >>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> nice > >>>>>>>>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> MultiFieldQuery already has boosts field to do this in its > >>>>>>>>>> constructor. > >>>>>>>>>>> The boots in the query parser are applied for fields during > query > >>>>>>>>>> time (to have a different weight per field). Index time boosting is > >>>>>>>> per > >>>>>>>>>> document. So you can combine both. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it is not needed with MultiFieldQueryParser. > >>>>>>>>>>> You use MultiFieldQueryParser to adjust weights of the fields > (e.g. > >>>>>>>>>> title versus body). The parsed query is then wrapped with an > >>>>>>>> expression > >>>>>>>>>> that modifies the score per document according to the > docvalues. > >>>>>>>>>>> Uwe > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/19 1:28 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's not true. You can do index time boosting, but you > need > >> to > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>> using a separate field. You just index a numeric docvalues > field > >>>>>>>>>> (which may > >>>>>>>>>>>> contain a long or float value per document). Later you wrap > your > >>>>>>>>>> query with > >>>>>>>>>>>> some FunctionScoreQuery (e.g., use the Javascript function > >> query > >>>>>>>>>> syntax in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the expressions module). This allows you to compile a > javascript > >>>>>>>>>> function > >>>>>>>>>>>> that calculated the final score based on the score returned by > >> the > >>>>>>>>>> inner query > >>>>>>>>>>>> and combines them with docvalues that were indexed per > >>>> document. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Uwe > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Uwe Schindler > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> > 3A__www.thetaphi.de&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIr > >>>>>>>>>>>> MUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6rVk8db2H8dAcjS3WCWmAPd08C7JQCvZ > >> > 8W80yE9L5xY&s=zgKmnmP9gLG4DlEnAfDdtBMEzPXtHNVYojxXIKEnQgs&e= > >>>>>>>>>>>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: baris.ka...@oracle.com <baris.ka...@oracle.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 5:28 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: baris.ka...@oracle.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Index-time boosting: Deprecated setBoost > >> method > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like index-time boosting (field) is not possible since > >>>>>>>>>> Lucene > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version 7.7.2 and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i was using before for another case the BoostQuery at > search > >>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boosting and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this seems to be the only boosting option now in Lucene. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/19 10:01 AM, baris.ka...@oracle.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i saw this in the Field class docs and i am figuring out the > >>>>>>>>>> following > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note in the docs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setBoost(float boost) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deprecated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Index-time boosts are deprecated, please index index- > time > >>>>>>>> scoring > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors into a doc value field and combine them with the > >> score > >>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query time using eg. FunctionScoreQuery. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate this note. Is there an example about this? I > wish > >>>>>>>>>> docs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would give a simple example to further help. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3A__lucene.apache.org_core_6-5F6- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > 5F0__core_org_apache_lucene_document_&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCga > >>>>>>>>>>>> WHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6rVk8db2H8dAcjS3WCWmAPd08C7JQCvZ > >>>> > 8W80yE9L5xY&s=rIVbw3_TGEwpaet5ibCeYze6vSDUiPhwOzlV0z484fM&e= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Field.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3A__lucene.apache.org_core_7-5F7- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > 5F2_core_org_apache_lucene_document_F&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaW > >>>>>>>>>>>> HvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6rVk8db2H8dAcjS3WCWmAPd08C7JQCvZ > >> > 8W80yE9L5xY&s=yt1toHHZQBqd3qKpWeSzywGJhy928Q5qaEO4v9Lj3vg&e= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ield.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user- > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user- > >> h...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Uwe Schindler > >>>>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> > 3A__www.thetaphi.de&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIr > >>>> MUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=6ksT9ArMj83Yxf_GrxLNeJ4UFEeKdVdLK0Bl > >>>> OT0d754&s=33f2nq9rOLI5pN9e_RYl_TiEKnP_f4WMZ__vqyz2bzo&e= > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user- > h...@lucene.apache.org > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Uwe Schindler > >>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > >>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> > 3A__www.thetaphi.de&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIr > >>>> MUB65eapI_JnE&r=nlG5z5NcNdIbQAiX- > >>>> > >> > BKNeyLlULCbaezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=owjI40OeLzt8gvPN44aTdndoiUel5E9Hqx1T > >>>> EcoWk_Y&s=xbZedNkQXb5eQcw_K7lCOP7b5ToKJVZ1dCPY3hi836c&e= > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> 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 > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
