Thanks for all the replies. I feel reassured with using Lucene. If I end up doing anything with the application that I'm writing, I would like to look at contributing some documentation of Lucene's features, and what it has to offer.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Galambos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Lucene features > Doug Cutting wrote: > > > > > I have some extensions to Lucene that I've not yet commited which make > > it possible to easily define synthetic IndexReaders (not currently > > supported). So you could do things that way, once I check these in. > > But is this really better than just ANDing the clauses together? It > > would take some big experiments to know, but my guess is that it > > doesn't make much difference to compute a "local" IDF for such things. > > > In this case, I think that the operator would be evaluated as "an > implication" and not "AND" (=1-(((1-q1)^p+(1-q2)^p )/2 )^(1/p)). > Obviously, you have to use an filter to filter out false hits (in case > of q1->q2, the formula is true when q1 is false, so it is not what you > really need), but it is not an issue with the auxiliary index. On the > other hand, it is a feeling and it needs a test, you are right. > > Leo > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
