Oh, I didn´t know if it is a -dev or -user question. So i decided for
the wrong one. Sorry.
-- Jan
Field( String, String, Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.TOKENIZED ) is the
equivalent of the old Field.Text( String, String ) which was deprecated
in 1.9 and removed in 2.0.
This is really a java-use
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-676?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley closed LUCENE-676.
---
Fix Version/s: 2.0.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Yonik Seeley
The test was incorrect. I fixed it, added some more tests, and committed.
> Promot
Field( String, String, Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.TOKENIZED ) is the
equivalent of the old Field.Text( String, String ) which was deprecated
in 1.9 and removed in 2.0.
This is really a java-user question.
-Original Message-
From: Jan Pieper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, Oct
I am new to Java and Lucene and I bought a book about Java Lucene and
there is
an example which does not function because Field.Text(String, String) is
deprecated now. What I have to do now?
Here is the code:
import
: >> but assuming "clean data" with no mis-spellings, scoring "rare" terms
: higher seems like the ideal behavior
:
: Exact matched of a term should have a higher ranking then fuzzy matched
: terms.. at least that's the expected behaviour in my situation although
: i think it seems the most common
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440219 ]
Marco Dissel commented on LUCENE-329:
-
>> but assuming "clean data" with no mis-spellings, scoring "rare" terms higher
>> seems like the ideal behavior
Exact
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440219 ]
Marco Dissel commented on LUCENE-329:
-
>> but assuming "clean data" with no mis-spellings, scoring "rare" terms higher
>> seems like the ideal behavior
Exact
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440213 ]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-329:
-
I'm not very familiar with this issue, but a quick review of the patch and the
existing comments lead me to believe that commiti
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440213 ]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-329:
-
I'm not very familiar with this issue, but a quick review of the patch and the
existing comments lead me to believe that commiti
Hi Andy,
My inbox was so stuffed I had missed the fact that a unit test was added.
I'll look into it today.
-Yonik
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server
On 10/5/06, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
About ten days ago, I filed bug 676:
Hi all,
About ten days ago, I filed bug 676:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-676
requesting that we promote Solr's PrefixFilter to the Java Lucene core.
Several people responded in favor:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/40269?search_string=PrefixFilt
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440168 ]
Marco Dissel commented on LUCENE-329:
-
Why isn't the patch implemented? My users are finding the current result of
fuzzy searched not correct (as stated in the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-329?page=comments#action_12440168 ]
Marco Dissel commented on LUCENE-329:
-
Why isn't the patch implemented? My users are finding the current result of
fuzzy searched not correct (as stated in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
