Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 332315228
I had the same problem as Brian. But since you have to rewrite the query anyway to do a query in two different fields it makes no difference if you use term or field boosting. Performance is the same. For new applications I'd say field boosting is a little simpler because you save on some commands during the query rewriting phase. Since I already had written that when field boosting came up, for me there is no difference. Btw. I changed the query classes to allow query rewriting. I made them Cloneable and added setter methods for them. If there's interest I'll contribute the patches asap. --Clemens ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Murzaku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Term boosting > Wouldn't field boosting (the new capability added as of > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01727.html) > be a simpler solution? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
