Mark, Thanks for the update, since I contributed the page, I was going to modify it (I don't want to force work on other.
sv On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Doug, > Thanks for the post. BoostingQuery looks to be cleaner, faster and more generally > useful than my > implementation :-) > Unless anyone has a particularly good reason I'll remove the link to my code that > Stephane put on the Wiki contributions page. > I definitely find BoostingQuery very useful and would be happy to see it in Lucene > core but I'm not sure its popular > enough to warrant adding special support to the query parser. > > BTW, I've had a thought about your suggestion for making the highlighter use some > form of RAMindex of sentence fragments > and then querying it to get the best fragments. This is nice in theory but could > fail to find anything if the query is of these forms: > a AND b > "a b" > When the code that breaks a doc into "sentence docs" splits co-occuring "a" and "b" > terms into seperate docs > this would produce no match. I dont think there's an easy way round that so I'll > stick to the current approach of scoring > fragments simply based on terms found in the query. > > > Cheers > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
