I've looked at Mark's concept and code, and, IMHO, his implementation is
well-done and addresses a huge need. It allows you to conduct Lucene
searches that can harness all the power of the latest Query objects,
without any special Java coding. Yet it also allows the user to be
presented with
In reviewing the latest changes incorporated into release 1.9 RC1, I
noticed a change responding to JIRA item LUCENE-306. According to the
writeup, the new change forces the wildcard pattern 'cat??' to exactly
match the length of the term (in this case, a five-letter term starting
with 'cat').
s it was in 1.4.x or
provide a flag (defaulting either way).
Terry
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 2/21/06, Terry Steichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, let's say that I'm interested in docs with terms 'riot',
'riots', 'rioting' and &#x
use a stemming analyzer of some kind,
which would match cat and cats but not cater, catches, etc?
http://snowball.tartarus.org/demo.php
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
On Feb 21, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Terry Steichen wrote:
No, I don't think that the riot* o
Hoss,
Whether the previous behavior (which I believe has been present in
Lucene from the outset) was a "bug" or a "feature" is kind of academic.
My point is that this behavior has value that's not countered by any
argument that any significant value is added by eliminating it.
As to your ri
1) Having a simple way to match singular and plural forms of a term with
a single wildcard expression is quite useful.
2) The trailing '?' behavior has been present since that wildcard was
first introduced. Why not provide a flag to allow the original behavior
to optionally be preserved?
3) The
+1
markharw00d wrote:
What do folks feel about a BooleanFilter which is the equivalent of
BooleanQuery ie a filter which contains other filters, combined with
the same "must", "should" or "must not" logic.
I know we already have ChainedFilter in the "misc" section of the
contrib area but it
