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 Page 21 ( 1.5.5 Field ) Though book describes Lucene 1.4 indexing which is obsolete in 1.9 and probably doesn't work in 2.0 , it should give a clear idea how to transform to newer methods.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 >
