Well, alright. Yet, I checked the index for URL and it wasn't in there.

This is why all books should be electronic. Any desktop search tool
(including lucene) would have found that easily.


On 7/31/07, Michael Mitiaguin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually there is.  Page 21 (  1.5.5 Field )
> Though book describes Lucene 1.4  indexing which is obsolete in 1.9
> and probably doesn't work in  2.0 , it should give a clear idea how to
> transform to newer methods.
>
> Regards
> Michael
>
> On 8/1/07, Patrick Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This part wasn't in that book. I looked.
> >
> > Well... the parts were there. But the arrangement is the art, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/07, Simone Busoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > To everyone, please read *Lucene in Action*, it will teach you most of
> the
> > > things you need to know about Lucene.
> > >
> > > Simone
> > >
> > > Patrick Burrows wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah. that's got it. Thanks!
> > >
> > > On 7/31/07, feran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is the Field UN_TOKENIZED?
> > >
> > > If it's TOKENIZED you may not find it because the value will have been
> > > split
> > > into terms.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Patrick Burrows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[email protected]> <
> [email protected]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: test
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hm...
> > >
> > > I do this:
> > >
> > > Query q = new TermQuery(new Term("link", args[1]));
> > > (from a command line test app I made) and it still does not find the
> url
> > > that Luke is showing me in the index. args[1] has the exact url copied
> > >
> > >
> > > out
> > >
> > >
> > > of Luke. I get 0 hits back -- which is probably better than getting
> > > *every*
> > > document back... but still not ideal.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/07, Kurt Mackey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Not only can you, but it's preferred.  The QueryParser really only
> > >
> > >
> > > exists
> > >
> > >
> > >  to handle human input.  If you can do it programmatically, things are
> > > much
> > > easier.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Burrows [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:04 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: test
> > >
> > > Yeah. That's exactly what is happening.
> > >
> > > Didn't realize I could use my own query without going through the
> > >
> > >
> > > parser.
> > >
> > >
> > >  On 7/31/07, Kurt Mackey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you using the query parser thing for that?  It will split on the
> > > various special characters in a URL, and (by default) give you
> > > something
> > > like this for http://www.microsoft.com/windows:
> > >
> > > field:(http OR www OR microsoft OR come OR windows)
> > >
> > > For things like that, you'll need to build your own queries, not use
> > > the
> > > parser.
> > >
> > > -Kurt
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Burrows [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:45 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: test
> > >
> > > hmm.... this seems to have made it through. My previous posts kept
> > >
> > >
> > > getting
> > >
> > >
> > > bounced for being spam.
> > >
> > > I had been trying to ask a question on searching for URLs. One of the
> > > fields
> > > in my index is called link. It holds nothing but URLs. There may be
> > > more
> > > than one link field per document.
> > >
> > > When I search on the url, though (using field:fullurl syntax) it
> > > returns
> > >
> > >
> > > a
> > >
> > >
> > > hit on every field in the database.
> > >
> > > Is there special syntax for searching for a url?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/07, Patrick Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > this is not spam, please stop bouncing it
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > P
> >
>



-- 
-
P

Reply via email to