Re: Logic of score method in hits class
I did in the same way what you mentioned i mean divide all scores by the first score and multiply by 100 Still I am not geeting exactly what I wanted. I am searching for two words asia cup in the search First three hits contains both words what i am searching for but i got percentages 100,69 and 33 respectively. I am using String fields[] = new String[2]; fields[0] = title; fields[1] = contents; Query q = MultiFieldQueryParser.parse(line,fields,analyzer); Hits hits = searcher.search(q); float sc = hits.score(i); Thanks in advance Raju - Original Message - From: Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lucene Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:37 PM Subject: Re: Logic of score method in hits class Lucene scores are not percentages. They really only make sense compared to other scores for the same query. If you like percentages, you can divide all scores by the first score and multiply by 100. Doug lingaraju wrote: Dear All How the score method works(logic) in Hits class For 100% match also score is returning only 69% Thanks and regards Raju - 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]
Time of last insert
Dear All How to know that, when(lastmodified time) last document is added to in index Thanks and regards Raju
Re: Boosting documents
Hallo,
I have followed your suggestion but I am not sure how it should be done
to achieve the following:
I want when I do the following search to have the score calculated so
that those with nr of kids higher get a better score and the less kids,
the less score , notice that I still want to get all documents
thanks for any input
import java.io.IOException;
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.SimpleAnalyzer;
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.StandardAnalyzer;
import org.apache.lucene.document.Document;
import org.apache.lucene.document.Field;
import org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter;
import org.apache.lucene.index.Term;
import org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException;
import org.apache.lucene.queryParser.QueryParser;
import org.apache.lucene.search.DefaultSimilarity;
import org.apache.lucene.search.Hits;
import org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher;
import org.apache.lucene.search.Query;
import org.apache.lucene.search.Searcher;
import org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory;
public class TestMatching
{
protected float f;
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException,
ParseException
{
RAMDirectory store = new RAMDirectory();
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(store, new
SimpleAnalyzer(), true);
Field f1 = Field.Text(field, word);
Field kids1 = Field.Keyword(kids, 2);
Field kids2 = Field.Keyword(kids, 3);
Field kids3 = Field.Keyword(kids, 4);
Document d1 = new Document();
Document d2 = new Document();
Document d3 = new Document();
d1.add(f1);
d2.add(f1);
d3.add(f1);
d1.add(kids1);
d2.add(kids2);
d3.add(kids3);
d1.add(f1);
writer.addDocument(d1);
writer.addDocument(d2);
writer.addDocument(d3);
writer.optimize();
writer.close();
Searcher s = new IndexSearcher(store);
s.setSimilarity(new DefaultSimilarity() {
public float idf(Term term, Searcher searcher) throws
IOException
{
String string = term.text();
String string2 = term.field();
float f = 0.0f;
if (term.field().equals(kids))
{
// and now ??
} else
{
f = idf(searcher.docFreq(term), searcher.maxDoc());
}
return f;
}
});
Query query = QueryParser.parse(field:word kids:5, field,
new StandardAnalyzer());
Hits hits = s.search(query);
for (int i = 0; i hits.length(); ++i)
{
Document doc = hits.doc(i);
System.out.println(i + + hits.score(i));
}
}
}
Am Mo, den 26.07.2004 schrieb Doug Cutting um 20:14:
Rob Clews wrote:
I want to do the same, set a boost for a field containing a date that
lowers as the date is further from now, is there any way I could do
this?
You could implement Similarity.idf(Term, Searcher) to, when
Term.field().equals(date), return a value that is greater for more
recent dates.
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!EXCUBATOR:41054a2d101985076154790!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Caching of TermDocs
The caching by TermScorer of the next 32 Docs is a way to speed up the serial (in order) reading of docs from the TermDocs object (probably coming direct from disk). I would like to hold a significant amount of the index in memory but use the disk index as a spill over. Obviously the best situation is to hold in memory only the information that is likely to be used again soon. It seems that caching TermDocs would allow popular search terms to be searched more efficiently while the less common terms would need to be read from disk. Has anyone else done this? Know of a better approach? - Original Message - From: Paul Elschot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 3:07 AM Subject: Re: Caching of TermDocs On Monday 26 July 2004 21:41, John Patterson wrote: Is there any way to cache TermDocs? Is this a good idea? Lucene does this internally by buffering up to 32 document numbers in advance for a query Term. You can view the details here in case you're interested: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/TermScorer.java It uses the TermDocs.read() method to fill a buffer of document numbers. Is this what you had in mind? Regards, Paul - 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]
Re: updating the index created for database search
I tried but I am missing some thing Please can you tell me the syntax how to use the TermQuery to check the presence of document in index from key field say OID - Original Message - From: Daniel Naber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lucene Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: Re: updating the index created for database search On Monday 26 July 2004 13:31, lingaraju wrote: If it is new record through which class we have to check that record is present in the index Just search for the id with a TermQuery. If you get a hit, the record is in the index already. - 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]
Re: Time of last insert
On Jul 27, 2004, at 5:15 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: There is no API for that. Yeah there is! :) IndexReader.lastModified() I borrowed that from LIMO's .jsp page, by the way. Erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Caching of TermDocs
John Patterson wrote: I would like to hold a significant amount of the index in memory but use the disk index as a spill over. Obviously the best situation is to hold in memory only the information that is likely to be used again soon. It seems that caching TermDocs would allow popular search terms to be searched more efficiently while the less common terms would need to be read from disk. The operating system already caches recent disk i/o. So what you'd save primarily would be the overhead of parsing the data. However the parsed form, a sequence of docNo and freq ints, is nearly eight times as large as its compressed size in the index. So your cache would consume a lot of memory. Whether it this provide much overall speedup depends on the distribution of common terms in your query traffic. If you have a few terms that are searched very frequently then it might pay off. In my experience with general-purpose search engines this is not usually the case: folks seem to use rarer words in queries than they do in ordinary text. But in some search applications perhaps the traffic is more skewed. Only some experiments would tell for sure. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time of last insert
But that method is deprecated and Replaced by getCurrentVersion() - Original Message - From: Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lucene Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:25 PM Subject: Re: Time of last insert On Jul 27, 2004, at 5:15 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: There is no API for that. Yeah there is! :) IndexReader.lastModified() I borrowed that from LIMO's .jsp page, by the way. Erik - 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]
storing a directory (indexes) in a database [Our Ref:CPTB5FAD]
hi there, There seems to be lots of talk about storing Lucene directories in a relational DB, but I haven't found too many links. I've looked at JDBCDirectory (http://ppinew.mnis.com/jdbcdirectory/) but get a NullPointerException when trying to get an index-reader on a newly created directory. Has anyone else had success with JDBCDirectory? Are there alternative implementation out there? thanks, Manoj This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee. If you are not the addressee you must not read, copy, use or disclose the e-mail nor the content; please notify us immediately (by clicking Reply) and delete this e-mail.
RE: write lock: cleaning an index
It looks like you didn't close the file handle properly. -Original Message- From: Ravi Rao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 12:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: write lock: cleaning an index All, I have an application that has one IndexWriter. Once in a while the enclosing application is taken down with a kill and IndexWriter leaves a lock file behind. Other than removing the lock file, is there anything else I can do to clean the index. The only general solution I can think of is to index to a temporary index and then every so often merge it with the master index, which cannot be allowed to be corrupted. In this scheme we lose only the temporary index rather than the master index. Many thanks, -- Ravi/ - 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]
Re: Caching of TermDocs
Cool. I'll give it a try. Looks like extending FilterIndexReader is the way to go. Or possibly I could cache the compressed form at a lower level getting the best of both worlds. I'll look into both ways, profile the app, and post my results. - Original Message - From: Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lucene Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Caching of TermDocs John Patterson wrote: I would like to hold a significant amount of the index in memory but use the disk index as a spill over. Obviously the best situation is to hold in memory only the information that is likely to be used again soon. It seems that caching TermDocs would allow popular search terms to be searched more efficiently while the less common terms would need to be read from disk. The operating system already caches recent disk i/o. So what you'd save primarily would be the overhead of parsing the data. However the parsed form, a sequence of docNo and freq ints, is nearly eight times as large as its compressed size in the index. So your cache would consume a lot of memory. Whether it this provide much overall speedup depends on the distribution of common terms in your query traffic. If you have a few terms that are searched very frequently then it might pay off. In my experience with general-purpose search engines this is not usually the case: folks seem to use rarer words in queries than they do in ordinary text. But in some search applications perhaps the traffic is more skewed. Only some experiments would tell for sure. Doug - 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]
Re: Phrase Query
Works for me.
Here is what I am striving to achieve.
phraseString = request.getParameter(phrase);
if (phraseString.length() 0){
phraseQueryString = \+phraseString+(\);
phraseQuery = true;
queryString = phraseQueryString;
}
if(phraseQuery){
PhraseQuery pQuery = new PhraseQuery();
pQuery.add(new Term(contents, phraseString));
pQuery.setSlop(0);
QueryParser qP = new QueryParser();
query = qP.parse(phraseString);
}
This is piece of the code, what I intend to do is if there is any
keyword entered in the Exact Phrase field of the form I want to use the
phrase query other wise use regular Query.
Please correct the code if you'll think it is not correct. I am still
learning about search and Lucene in general.
thanks.
-H
Erik Hatcher wrote:
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
