Re: sorted search
On Thursday 24 February 2005 19:01, Yura Smolsky wrote:
sort.setSort( new SortField[] { new SortField (modified,
SortField.STRING, true) } );
You should store the date as a number, e.g. days since 1970 (or weeks if
that is precise enough) and then tell the sort that it's an integer.
DateField always stores the date in milliseconds which leads to a large
number of terms, it also turns the date into a string, both makes searching
and especially sorting slower.
Regards
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MultiFieldQueryParser 1.8 isn't parsing phrases
On Saturday 19 February 2005 15:26, Ben wrote: When I try to search for phrases using the MultiFieldQueryParser v1.8 from CVS, it gives me NullPointerException. This has just been fixed in SVN (I assume you mean SVN, CVS still exists but is read only and probably not updated anymore). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using the highlighter from the sandbox with a prefix query.
On Thursday 17 February 2005 08:37, lucuser4851 wrote: We have been using the highlighter from the lucene sandbox, which works very nicely most of the time. However when we try and use it with a prefix query (which is what you get having parsed a wild-card query), it doesn't return any highlighted sections. Has anyone else experienced this problem, or found a way around it? You need to call rewrite() on the query before you pass it to the highlighter. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lucene cuts the search results ?
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 09:39, Pierre VANNIER wrote: String fragment = highlighter.getBestFragment(stream, introduction); The highlighter breaks up text into same-size chunks (100 characters by default). If the matching term now appears just at the end or at the start of such a chunk you'll get no context and it looks as if text was cut off. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lucene and multiple languages
On Thursday 20 January 2005 21:08, aurora wrote: Now let's said I have an index with documents in multiple languages and analyzed by an assortment of analyzers. When user enter a query, what analyzer should be used? Use q1 OR q2, where q1 is the query parsed with the analyzer for language 1, q2 is the query parsed with the analyzer for language 2 (and so on). If there are conflicts you could also add a required term query to each subquery, like language:en^0 so that, for example, the English analyzer query only searches on documents that have been identified as English. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lucene2.0 and transaction support
On Thursday 20 January 2005 22:39, John Wang wrote: When is lucene 2.0 scheduled to be released? Is there a javadoc somewhere so we can check out the new APIs? There's no release date. You'll need to check out the CVS and run ant javadocs to see the API. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Demo webapp + pdf
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 15:54, Vlachogiannis Evangelos wrote: I can search for html and txt files. I would like to ask how can I make that looking also for pdf ? This is answered in the FAQ: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/LuceneFAQ#head-f3f5e8305b63cf17373953a50d6460e731bf2cfb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WordNet code updated, now with query expansion -- Re: SYNONYM + GOOGLE
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 01:47, David Spencer wrote: Amusingly then, documents with the terms liberal wienerwurst match big dog! :) There's something like frequency information in WordNet, it could probably be used to ignore the uncommon meanings. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SQL Distinct sintax in Lucen
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 23:05, Carlos Franco Robles wrote: I'm starting to use lucene and I wonder if it is possible to make a query syntax to ask for one string which can be in two different fields and filter duplicated results like with distinct in SQL syntax. Lucene only knows documents and doesn't know what duplicate could mean. The easiest thing is to iterate over the result set and do the filtering yourself. regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1.4.3 breaks 1.4.1 QueryParser functionality
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 23:53, Bill Janssen wrote: protected Query getFieldQuery (String field, Analyzer a, String queryText) throws ParseException You're right, the problem is that we should call the deprecated method for example in getFieldQuery(String field, String queryText, int slop). However, there's a simple workaround: just remove the analyzer parameter from your method. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de
Re: addIndexes() Question
On Thursday 23 December 2004 00:45, Ryan Aslett wrote: When all machines and all threads are finished, I should have a slew of index slices that I want to combine together to create one index. You should simply skip this step and instead search the small indices with a ParallelMultiSearcher. This should scale much better than one huge index (note that ranking is currently messed up with (Parllel)MultiSearcher, see the bug reports for a proposed fix). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exception: cannot determine sort type
On Thursday 23 December 2004 05:25, Kauler, Leto S wrote: java.lang.RuntimeException: no terms in field Title_Sort - cannot determine sort type Is it a certain query that causes this? Does it really only happen under load or does the same query also give this without load? We could specify the sort type as String but we do have some Date fields too. Are dates actually indexed as strings? If you're using DateField: yes. But you don't have to use that class, you can save dates however you want. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Word co-occurrences counts
On Thursday 23 December 2004 07:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.To be able to return the number of times the word appears in all the documents (which it looks like lucene can do through IndexReader) If you're referring to docFreq(Term t) , that will only return the number of documents that contain the term, ignoring how often the term occurs in these documents. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CFS file and file formats
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 23:41, Steve Rajavuori wrote: Thanks. I am trying to repair a corrupted 'segments' file. Why are you sure it's corrupted? Are the *.cfs file and the other files types mixed in one directory? Then that's the problem: if you have *.cfs, segments, and deletable, nothing else should exist in that directory or Lucene will get confused. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aramorph Analyzer
On Thursday 16 December 2004 11:59, Safarnejad, Ali (AFIS) wrote: Actually, one thing worth mentioning about the search, is when searching for whole phrases, if there is any ambiguous words in the phrase, then the Search fails to find the document, even if the phrase was copied and pasted from the original document. Analyzers that provide ambiguous terms (i.e. a token with more than one term at the same position) don't work in Lucene 1.4. This feature has only recently been added to CVS. The workaround would be to backport that change. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does the StandardTokenizer split hyphenated words?
On Thursday 16 December 2004 13:46, Mike Snare wrote: Maybe for a-b, but what about English words like half-baked? Perhaps that's the difference in thinking, then. I would imagine that you would want to search on half-baked and not half AND baked. A search for half-baked will find both half-baked and half baked (the phrase). The only thing you'll not find if halfbaked. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does the StandardTokenizer split hyphenated words?
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 19:29, Mike Snare wrote: In my case, the words are keywords that must remain as is, searchable with the hyphen in place. It was easy enough to modify the tokenizer to do what I need, so I'm not really asking for help there. I'm really just curious as to why it is that a-1 is considered a single token, but a-b is split. a-1 is considered a typical product name that needs to be unchanged (there's a comment in the source that mentions this). Indexing hyphen-word as two tokens has the advantage that it can then be found with the following queries: hypen-word (will be turned into a phrase query internally) hypen word (phrase query) (it cannot be found searching for hyphenword, however). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does the StandardTokenizer split hyphenated words?
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 21:14, Mike Snare wrote: Also, the phrase query would place the same value on a doc that simply had the two words as a doc that had the hyphenated version, wouldn't it? This seems odd. Not if these words are spelling variations of the same concept, which doesn't seem unlikely. In addition, why do we assume that a-1 is a typical product name but a-b isn't? Maybe for a-b, but what about English words like half-baked? Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinions: Using Lucene as a thin database
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 20:13, Monsur Hossain wrote: My concern is that this just shifts the scaling issue to Lucene, and I haven't found much info on how to scale Lucene vertically. You can easily use MultiSearcher to search over several indices. If you want the distribution to be more transparent, have a look at Nutch. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ANNOUNCE] Lucene 1.4.3 released
I'd like to officially announce Lucene 1.4.3. This release fixes two bugs, the list of changes is so short that I will simply paste it here: 1. The JSP demo page (src/jsp/results.jsp) now properly escapes error messages which might contain user input (e.g. error messages about query parsing). If you used that page as a starting point for your own code please make sure your code also properly escapes HTML characters from user input in order to avoid so-called cross site scripting attacks. 2. QueryParser changes in 1.4.2 broke the QueryParser API. Now the old API is supported again. The source code and binaries can be downloaded from http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/jakarta/lucene/ Project website: http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/index.html Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help on the Query Parser
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 08:16, Morus Walter wrote: Lucene itself doesn't handle wildcards within phrases. This can be added using PhrasePrefixQuery (which is slightly misnamed): http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/PhrasePrefixQuery.html Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JDBCDirectory to prevent optimize()?
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 00:06, Kevin A. Burton wrote: I'm wondering about the potential for a generic JDBCDirectory for keeping the lucene index within a database. Such a thing already exists: http://ppinew.mnis.com/jdbcdirectory/, but I don't know about its scalability. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QueryParser: [stopword] AND something throws Exception
On Friday 12 November 2004 17:52, Peter Pimley wrote: [this is using lucene-1.4-final] Please try 1.4.2. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug in the BooleanQuery optimizer? ..TooManyClauses
On Friday 12 November 2004 21:28, Luke Francl wrote: That's the point: there is no query optimizer in Lucene. Would it be possible to write one? I would be very interested in this feature. There are two different issues: first, reorder the query so that those terms with less matches appear first, because as soon as the first term with 0 matches occurs, search stops. There will probably be a non-so-difficult implementation for that, but this will have more overhead than it saves time I guess. The other thing is that prefix queries get expanded first, then the search happens. And that TooManyQueries exception happens when expanding the query, not during search. I'm not sure, but I think that's difficult to change, at least in a clean way. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug in the BooleanQuery optimizer? ..TooManyClauses
On Thursday 11 November 2004 20:57, Sanyi wrote: What I'm saying is that there is no reason for the optimizer to expand wild* to more than 1024 variations That's the point: there is no query optimizer in Lucene. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stopword AND validword throws exception
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 10:46, Sanyi wrote: This query seems to crash: stopword AND validword (java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -1) I think this has been fixed in the development version (which will become Lucene 1.9). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filters for Openoffice File Indexing available (Java)
On Monday 08 November 2004 11:30, Joachim Arrasz wrote: So now we are looking for search and index Filters for Lucene, that were able to integrate out OpenOffice Files also into search result. I don't know of any existing solutions, but it's not so difficult to write one: Extract the ZIP file using Java's built-in ZIP classes and parse content.xml and meta.xml. I'm not sure if whitespace issues might become tricky, e.g. two paragraphs could be in the file as pone/pptwo/p, but for indexing a whitespace needs to be inserted between them (p was just an example, I don't know what OpenOffice.org actually uses). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filters for Openoffice File Indexing available (Java)
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 15:18, Joachim Arrasz wrote: Why should i parse meta.xml? I thaught content.xml should be enough. It contains the file's title, keywords, and author etc (those are not in content.xml). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there an easy way to have indexing ignore a CVS subdirectory in the index directory?
On Friday 05 November 2004 18:03, Chuck Williams wrote: The Lucene index is not in CVS -- neither the directory nor the files. But it is a subdirectory of a directory that is in CVS, Does this patch help? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31747 -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorting by score and an additional field
On Thursday 04 November 2004 03:52, Chris Fraschetti wrote:
I can only get it to sort by one or the other... but when it does one,
it does sort correctly, but together in {score, custom_field} only the
first sort seems to apply.
Do you use real documents for that test? The score is a float value and
it's hardly ever the same for two documents (unless you use very short
test documents), so that's why the second field may not be used for
sorting.
regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new version of NewMultiFieldQueryParser
On Friday 29 October 2004 20:42, Bill Janssen wrote: Try running the program at ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/transient/janssen/SearchTest.java, and see how that works for you. Seems to work fine with Java 1.4.2 and Lucene 1.4.1, for me. That seems to be the old version that doesn't implement getFieldQuery. The new version (which you pasted in an email on 2004-10-27) doesn't seem to work with e.g. prefix queries. I call it like this: String[] fields = new String[2]; fields[0] = title; fields[1] = body; NewMultiFieldQueryParser qp = new NewMultiFieldQueryParser(fields, new WhitespaceAnalyzer()); Query q = qp.parse(+gut* +test); System.out.println(q); I get: +%%:gut* +(title:test body:test) Or am I mixing up the versions? Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Searching for a phrase that contains quote character
On Thursday 28 October 2004 19:03, Justin Swanhart wrote: Have you tried making a term query by hand and testing to see if it works? Term t = new Term(field, this is a \test\); PhraseQuery pq = new PhraseQuery(t); That's not a proper PharseQuery, it searches for *one* term this is a test which is probably not what one wants. You have to add the terms one by one to a PhraseQuery. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Search.jhtml ?
On Thursday 28 October 2004 15:01, Willy De Waele wrote: Executing the demos as a bat file (Windows) is working fine, but using lucene as a web 'application' is not working ... I think that Search.jhtml is totally outdated, please try src/jsp instead. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Searching for a path
On Friday 29 October 2004 00:22, Bill Tschumy wrote: I get zero hits. Why are these not equivalent? I think it has something to do with the fact that the url needs to be quoted so I search for an exact match. When you manually build the query there's no need to have quotes around it. Can you try without the quotes? Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poor Lucene Ranking for Short Text
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 20:20, Kevin A. Burton wrote: http://www.peerfear.org/rss/permalink/2004/10/26/PoorLuceneRankingForSho rtText/ (Kevin complains about shorter documents ranked higher) This is something that can easily be fixed. Just use a Similarity implementation that extends DefaultSimilarity and that overwrites lengthNorm: just return 1.0f there. You need to use that Similarity for indexing and searching, i.e. it requires reindexing. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poor Lucene Ranking for Short Text
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:47, Kevin A. Burton wrote: If the current behavior is all that happens this is fine... this way I can just get this behavior for new documents that are added. You'll have to try it out, I'm not sure what exactly will happen. Also... why isn't this the default? You'll probably end up with many documents having exactly the same ranking. And those documents will then be sorted in a random order (not really, they will by sorted by internal ID I think, but that's no useful order for most use cases). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aliasing problem
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 19:22, Abhay Saswade wrote: I tried following but no luck I have written alias filter which returns 2 more tokens for doom3 as 3 and doom I construct query +GAME:doom3 QueryParser returns +GAME:doom3 3 doom Your approach is correct, but QueryParser doesn't yet support analyzers which return more than one token at a position. There's already a patch about this in the bug tracking system. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorting on multiple fields
On Monday 18 October 2004 21:25, Angelov, Rossen wrote: The first one represents date in format mmddMMHHSS and the second one are the article headlines. The headlines are probably tokenized, right? Sorting then won't work, I think the API documentation contains some details about this. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorting on multiple fields
On Monday 18 October 2004 23:39, Angelov, Rossen wrote: Is there any workaround for sorting on tokenized fields? Just save the field a second time under a different name and use Field.Keyword() for that. Then you can use it for sorting, and still use the original field for searching. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: StopWord elimination pls. HELP
On Sunday 17 October 2004 05:23, Miro Max wrote: d.add(Field.Text(cont, cont)); writer.addDocument(d); to get results from a database into lucene index. but when i check println(d) i can see the german stopwords too. how can i eliminate this? Field.Text(field, cont) where cont is a String will also store the original text, additionally to indexing it. toString() will then show the stored text. In the index you won't have any stopwords. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Special field values
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 08:45, Michael Hartmann wrote: The field should store a vector of values that indicate whether or not a term exists in a document or not. You can just add more than one field with the same name but different values per document, then searching for single values should work. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorting and score ordering
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 19:53, Chris Fraschetti wrote: Is there a way I can (without recompiling) ... make the score have priority and then my sort take affect when two results have the same rank? You can just (explicitly) sort by score and use some other field as a second sort key. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sorting and score ordering
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 20:44, Chris Fraschetti wrote: I haven't seen an example on how to apply two sorts to a search.. can you help me out with that? Check out the documentation for Sort(SortField[] fields) and SortField. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory leak in Lucene 1.4?
On Wednesday 06 October 2004 19:48, Steve Rajavuori wrote: Is anyone aware of memory leaks in Lucene 1.4? I have an application that has been running fine with Lucene 1.2. I can write indexes for days and it never consumes more than 14 Meg of memory. There was a leak with searching that got fixed in 1.4.2. I'm not aware of leaks in indexing. Please try to build a test case that demonstrates the problem, then it's usually quite easy to fix. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding using Lucene or not
On Monday 04 October 2004 22:22, you wrote: 1. How difficult it is to implement our own Similarity class that can do the things we want ? It should be very easy. The API is described here: http://jakarta.apache.org/lucene/docs/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html I think in your case all methods (except one) that return a float can just return 1.0f. The one that doesn't return 1 then returns a value that represents the difference to the perfect value (well, more like 1/difference). 2. If there are more than one field that are percentage match like HP, can we also specify which field gets the preference while search. If you implement the method mentioned above so that it always ranks some field higher than another, that should be possible. But it you've only got 1000 documents (and that number won't increase) you could also just search for HP:cargo, put all matches in your own Match objects and then sort these via your own implementation of Java's compareTo(). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding using Lucene or not
On Saturday 02 October 2004 02:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The parameters are both string and numeric. For example, the model should be Cargo and its HP value should be 55,000 or near it . If we specify tolerance value of 5000 then it should search for all the data files where model node is Cargo (definitive match) and HP value is between 50,000 to 60,000 with the one having 55,000 coming as the 100% match. That's possible with Lucene, you'll need to parse the XML files and put the required data into the Lucene index. Then you can search with a query like this: +model:cargo^0 +hp:[5 TO 6] hp:55000^10 This will match all document which contain cargo in the model field and a value of 5 to 6 in the hp field. Matches with hp 55000 will be boosted so they appear on top. However, matches 5 to 54999 and 50001 to 6 will have the same ranking. To change that you will need to implement your own variation of Lucene's Similarity class. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using Proximity for Ranking
On Friday 24 September 2004 15:27, Olena Medelyan wrote: I know that I can use the slop operator for phrase search (red fox~3), but what I need should work for partial matching as well. You can use the value of Integer.MAX_VALUE instead of 3 in your example, something like: +red +fox +red fox~2147483647^10 Nutch does that I think (you might want to search the archives), but I have no clue how fast/slow it is. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: problem with get/setBoost of document fields
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 18:44, Bastian Grimm [Eastbeam GmbH] wrote: if i set the d1 and f1 boost to 1.0f (default) the score returned by the HitCollector is 0.3xxx - shouldn't it be exactly 1.0 ? See the documentation for getBoost: Note: this value is not stored directly with the document in the index. Documents returned from IndexReader.document(int) and Hits.doc(int) may thus not have the same value present as when this field was indexed. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: range query problems
On Friday 17 September 2004 19:37, Derek Baker wrote: However, if I create a range query that I would expect to find that value, I get nothing. The range query string is: adzer:[# TO 0] (minus the quotes). As far as I can tell, this query string should find any value in the adzer fields that starts with a -. Did you try building that query manually? Maybe even starting from null instead of #. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QueryParser.parse() and Lucene1.4.1
On Thursday 16 September 2004 19:38, Polina Litvak wrote: I ran my code first with lucene-1.3-final.jar, getting the query Field:(A AND -(B)) parsed into +Field:A -Field:B This code: Query query = QueryParser.parse(Field:(AAA AND -(BBB)), field, new StandardAnalyzer()); System.out.println(query); Will print this with Lucene 1.4.1: +Field:aaa -Field:bbb It will not work with A instead of AAA because A is a stopword. In other words, I still cannot reproduce your problem. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: boosting fields in MultiFieldQueryParser with different factors
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 18:06, Fiebig, Swen (init) wrote: is there a way to boost the different fields of a MultiFieldQueryParser with different factors? Or at least in the resulting Query? The easiest way is probably to subclass MultiFieldQueryParser and implement a method that modifies the boosts (you can copy most of it from MultiFieldQueryParser.parse() and then call setBoost() on the queries). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QueryParser.parse() and Lucene1.4.1
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:58, Polina Litvak wrote: Does anyone know how to work around this new feature ? I can't remember any changes in this area, but I just tried with the current version from CVS and the output is the one which you want. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OutOfMemory example
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 08:32, Ji Kuhn wrote: The error is thrown in exactly the same point as before. This morning I downloaded Lucene from CVS, now the jar is lucene-1.5-rc1-dev.jar, JVM is 1.4.2_05-b04, both Linux and Windows. Now I can reproduce the problem. I first tried running the code inside Eclipse, but the Exception doesn't occur there. It does occur on the command line. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OutOfMemory example
On Monday 13 September 2004 15:06, Ji Kuhn wrote: I think I can reproduce memory leaking problem while reopening an index. Lucene version tested is 1.4.1, version 1.4 final works OK. My JVM is: Could you try with the latest Lucene version from CVS? I cannot reproduce your problem with that version (Sun's Java 1.4.2_03, Linux). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Addition to contributions page
On Friday 10 September 2004 15:48, Chas Emerick wrote: PDFTextStream should be added to the 'Document Converters' section, with this URL http://snowtide.com , and perhaps this heading: 'PDFTextStream -- PDF text and metadata extraction'. The 'Author' field should probably be left blank, since there's no single creator. I just added it. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MultiFieldQueryParser seems broken... Fix attached.
On Thursday 09 September 2004 18:52, Doug Cutting wrote: I have not been able to construct a two-word query that returns a page without both words in either the content, the title, the url or in a single anchor. Can you? Like this one? konvens leitseite Leitseite is only in the title of the first match (www.gldv.org), konvens is only in the body. -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Out of memory in lucene 1.4.1 when re-indexing large number of documents
On Thursday 09 September 2004 19:47, Daniel Taurat wrote: I am facing an out of memory problem using Lucene 1.4.1. Could you try with a recent CVS version? There has been a fix about files not being deleted after 1.4.1. Not sure if that could cause the problems you're experiencing. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam:too many open files
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 17:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A note to developers, the code checked into lucene CVS ~Aug 15th, post 1.4.1, was causing frequent index corruptions. When I reverted back to version 1.4 I no longer am getting the corruptions. Here are some changes from around that day: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/SegmentMerger.java http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/SegmentReader.java http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexWriter.java Could you check which of those might have caused the problem? I guess there's not much the developers can do without the problem being reproducible. regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Range query problem
On Thursday 26 August 2004 11:02, Alex Kiselevski wrote: I have a strange problem with range query PERIOD:[1 TO 9] It works only if the second parameter is equals or less than 9 If it's greater than 9 , it finds no documents You have to store your numbers so that they will appear in the right order when sorted lexicographically, e.g. save 1 as 01 if you save numbers up to 99, or as 0001 if you save numbers up to . You also have to use this format for searching I think. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OutOfMemoryError
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 00:30, Terence Lai wrote:
if (fsDir != null) {
try {
is.close();
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
}
You close is here again, not fsDir. Also, it's a good idea to never ignore
exceptions, you should at least print them out, even if it's just a
close() that fails.
Regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
Re: wildcard uppercase
On Thursday 12 August 2004 22:30, Kipping, Peter wrote: As you can see it's been lower cased and I get no hits. Looks like something is lowercasing the wildcard query. How can I make it not do that? Try QueryParser's setLowercaseWildcardTerms(boolean). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Benchmark of filesystem cache for index vs RAMDirectory...
On Sunday 08 August 2004 03:40, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
Would a HashMap implementation of RAMDirectory beat out a cached
FSDirectory?
It's easy to test, so it's worth a try. Please try if the attached patch
makes any difference for you compared to the current implementation of
RAMDirectory.
Regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
Index: RAMDirectory.java
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/store/RAMDirectory.java,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 RAMDirectory.java
--- RAMDirectory.java 7 Aug 2004 11:19:28 - 1.16
+++ RAMDirectory.java 8 Aug 2004 09:01:19 -
@@ -18,8 +18,11 @@
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.File;
+import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Hashtable;
import java.util.Enumeration;
+import java.util.Iterator;
+import java.util.Set;
import org.apache.lucene.store.Directory;
import org.apache.lucene.store.InputStream;
@@ -31,7 +34,7 @@
* @version $Id: RAMDirectory.java,v 1.16 2004/08/07 11:19:28 dnaber Exp $
*/
public final class RAMDirectory extends Directory {
- Hashtable files = new Hashtable();
+ HashMap files = new HashMap();
/** Constructs an empty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Directory}. */
public RAMDirectory() {
@@ -93,9 +96,11 @@
public final String[] list() {
String[] result = new String[files.size()];
int i = 0;
-Enumeration names = files.keys();
-while (names.hasMoreElements())
- result[i++] = (String)names.nextElement();
+Set names = files.keySet();
+for (Iterator iter = names.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
+ String element = (String) iter.next();
+ result[i++] = element;
+}
return result;
}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing and Querying
On Friday 06 August 2004 08:37, Tino Schöllhorn wrote: I am aware that the Lucene Query-Api supports wildcards, but as far as I know I cannot add a * in front of a query-term. That should be possible, but it will be slow if you have many terms. Another idea is to additionally index the word in reverse order: bergbahn - nhabgreb, then a query for nhab* will find all words that end with bahn (you can use a prefix query then, which is not as slow as a WildcardQuery but still slow). Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analyzing and Querying
On Friday 06 August 2004 13:28, Magnus Johansson wrote: Splitting compound words can be done quite effectively simply by using a large wordlist. I have done this for swedish. It is, however, difficult to get right for German. On the one hand there are compounds in German with more than two parts, on the other hand there are extra characters in the middle of some compound words (e.g. Arbeit + Aufwand = ArbeitSaufwand). Also, the compounds have their inflectional endings, e.g. the plural of Bergbahn is Bergbahnen. At http://lemmi.intrafind.org you can see a demo that deals with almost all cases, even things like dazugekauftes (but it's not freely available). Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Weighted queries
On Friday 06 August 2004 16:54, Eric Jain wrote: (title:foo^4 OR abstract:foo^2 OR content:foo) AND (title:bar^4 OR abstract:bar^2 OR content:bar) That's not the way MultiFieldQueryParser will rewrite your query. To get this kind of query you have to parse it with QueryParser and then iterate recursivly (in case of BooleanQuery) over it, using Java's instanceof. Each term needs to be replaced with a BooleanQuery over all the fields you want to search in. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Negative Boost
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 13:19, Terry Steichen wrote: I can't get negative boosts to work with QueryParser. Is it possible to do so? Isn't that the same as using a boost 1, e.g. 0.1? That should be possible. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TermFreqVector Beginner Question
On Thursday 29 July 2004 17:31, Matt Galloway wrote: Field.Text(String name, Reader value, boolean storeTermVector) Field.UnStored(String name, String value, boolean storeTermVector) DO NOT store the contents of the field This part of the API is known to be difficult and will be fixed for Lucene 2.0 (which is the next version). Till then, I'll try to remember to extend the documentation. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: updating the index created for database search
On Monday 26 July 2004 11:37, lingaraju wrote: 2) When I fetch the rows from the database in order to update or insert in index how to know which record is modified in database and which record is not present is index Your database will need a last modified column. Then you can select those rows that have been modified since the last update and for each row check if it's in the Lucene index. If it is, delete it there and re-add the new version. If it's not, add it. To delete documents you will probably need to iterate over all your IDs in the Lucene index and check if they are still in the database. If that's too inefficient you could check if you can do it the way the file system indexer (IndexHTML in Lucene's demo) does it. BTW, please don't cross-post to both lists. Regards Daniel -- Daniel Naber, IntraFind Software AG, Tel. 089-8906 9700 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
Re: RangeQuery on Numeric values
On Friday 23 July 2004 16:58, Terence Lai wrote: I am currently using Lucene 1.4 Final. I want to construct a query that matches a numeric range. I believe that the RangeQuery defined in Lucene API uses the string comparision. It does not work for numeric contents. Does anyone know how to create a numeric range query? RangeQuery works for numbers, too, but you have to store them in the index so they are sorted correctly when sorted alphabetically. For example, if your numbers are between 0 and 1000 you have to store them as strings to 1000. Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lucene cutomized indexing
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 17:28, John Wang wrote: I have asked to make the Lucene API less restrictive many many many times but got no replies. I suggest you just change it in your source and see if it works. Then you can still explain what exactly you did and why it's useful. From the developers point-of-view having things non-final means more stuff is exposed and making changes is more difficult (unless one accepts that derived classes may break with the next update). Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lucene cutomized indexing
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 18:12, John Wang wrote: They make sure during deployment their versions gets loaded before the same classes in the lucene .jar. I don't see why people cannot just make their own lucene.jar. Just remove the final and recompile. Finally, Lucene is Open Source. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: join two indexes
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 19:19, Sergio wrote: i want to join two lucene indexes but i dont know how to do that. There are two addIndexes methods in IndexWriter which you can use to write your own small merge tool (a ready-to-use tool for index merging doesn't exist AFAIK). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lucene vs. MySQL Full-Text
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 21:29, Tim Brennan wrote: Does anyone out there have anything more concrete they can add? Stemming is still on the MySQL TODO list: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Fulltext_TODO.html Also, for most people it's easier to extend Lucene than MySQL (as MySQL is written in C(++?)) and there are more powerful queries in Lucene, e.g. fuzzy phrase search. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Query across multiple fields scenario not handled by MultiFieldQueryParser
On Sunday 18 July 2004 18:39, Thomas Plümpe wrote: Does anybody here know which changes I would have to make to QueryParser.jj to get the functionality described? I haven't tried it but I guess you need to change the getXXXQuery() methods so they return a BooleanQuery. For example, getFieldQuery currently might return a TermQuery; you'll need to change that so it returns a BooleanQuery with two TermQuerys. These two queries would have the same term, but a different field. Another approach is to leave QueryParser alone and modify the query after it has been parsed by recursively iterating over the parsed query, replacing e.g. TermQuerys with BooleanQuerys (just like described above). Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lucene shouldn't use java.io.tmpdir
On Monday 12 July 2004 09:04, Morus Walter wrote: Lucene might work around this by creating a directory in java.io.tmpdir setting apropriate permission (can that be done with java os independently?) and put the lock there. But if everybody can delete your lock files, that would be a security problem. Deleting stale locks isn't a problem, but how would one decide if a lock is stale? Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Browse by Letter within a Category
On Monday 12 July 2004 17:48, O'Hare, Thomas wrote: Does Lucene have a beginning of line query syntax, like the regular expression ^ symbol? For example, title:^A* If your title isn't tokenized the ^ is implicit, I think. As usual, if your title is tokenized you can easily add another field with the same value as title, but in untokenized form. What is the best way to sort by a date? I currently have a date field that is used for searching in the format MMDD as a Field.Keyword. Lucene 1.4 added an IndexSearcher.search() method that takes a Sort() object which lets you sort by any field. Your date field can be used for that, as it has the correct format (because sorting it alphabetically will give you the right order already). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exact match search
On Monday 12 July 2004 21:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to match documents that exactly equal a certain value, not just contain it. Just don't tokenize your Fields, and make sure that the query also doesn't get tokenized (the easiest way to ensure that is probably to not use QueryParser but just build a TermQuery directly from the user's input). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Browse by Letter within a Category
On Friday 09 July 2004 04:27, O'Hare, Thomas wrote: Searcher.search(category:\Products\ AND title:\A*\, new Sort(title)); You can only sort on fields which are not tokenized I think. So add an extra field with the title, but untokenized, just for sorting. Also, A* might slow down the query execution so you might want to add another field which just contains the first letter so there's no need for the asterisk. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lucene shouldn't use java.io.tmpdir
On Friday 09 July 2004 16:15, Armbrust, Daniel C. wrote: (since no full path was given with the error - has this been fixed?) and C) That's fixed in Lucene 1.4. I think the locks should go back in the index, and we should fall back or give an option to put them elsewhere for the case of the read-only index. There's already a Java system property that let's you specify the lock directory. Regards Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: demo indexing problems on linux
On Thursday 17 June 2004 21:10, Morris Mizrahi wrote: When I run org.apache.lucene.demo.IndexHTML on Linux the indexer works fine when I am creating a new index (e.g. using -create -index option). But when I run the indexer again (-index without the -create option) for updates it does not properly update the index. Morris, what exactly happens when you run the update? Does it miss files that have been modified? I just tried it on Linux and it works fine. Files that have been modified (according to their file date) are deleted and then added again to the index. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a search like Google
On Friday 13 February 2004 07:43, Morus Walter wrote: If you want to use query parser you can parse the query with different default fields, set boost factors on the resulting queries and join them with a boolean query. This will give you (+title:i +title:love +title:lucene)^2 (+author:i +author:love +author:lucene) (+content:i +content:love +content:lucene) This will not match documents that contain only I love in the title and lucene in the body. Doesn't seem like a problem for this example, as it looks like a phrase query, but I don't think that this is Google's behavior. I worked around that by prepending the title to the body field. Let me know if someone has a better solution. The correct query would have to look something like this (leavon out the boosting): +(title:i body:i) +(title:love body:love) +(title:lucene body:lucene) Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matching a single document
On Sunday 08 February 2004 20:07, Chris Kimm wrote: Two possible approaches, both of which seem ungainly, are 1) creating a temporary index for each document being indexed You can use a RAMDirectory for indexing so nothing needs to be written to disk. This should be quite fast. or 2) Writing a class that matches document Fields with Query Terms. This second approach would require a way to extract individual Terms from Queries. Is that possible? Yes, you need to recursively iterate over all parts of the query. For example, a boolean query may consist of other boolean queries. You need to go down until you've got a TermQuery, which holds the term itself (or you could use rewrite() to make this easier). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: search DB data
On Wednesday 07 January 2004 17:08, Kevin Price wrote: I will have users enter in their search text. The data that needs to be searched is stored in a DB. So I would like to do a query against the Database, and then somehow use Lucene to parse those results for all of the searching options (Boolean operators, multiple words, wildcards,fuzzy, etc). Lucene works on its own index files. So the usual way is to index the data in the database with Lucene and then query Lucene. Parsing the database results during search time with Lucene doesn't seem to be possible/useful. The only thing one might want to use at runtime when the database does the actual query is maybe the query parser (in order to build an SQL query from the user's input). Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IndexHTML example on Jakarta Site
On Friday 02 January 2004 20:50, Leo Galambos wrote: IMHO Lucene is library/API and unless you are a JAVA developer, it does not fit your needs. One reason for the confusion might be that the homepage states that Lucene is a full-featured text search engine. IMHO this should be replaced by a powerful Java library for full-text indexing or something like that. Regards Daniel -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
