I don't understand why we need to add custom codec name in this file
Thanks & Regards
Aravinth
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:52 AM, aravinth thangasami <
aravinththangas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
Hi all,
i m thinkking another solution : it could also possible building additional
info in relation to the query to use :).
2016-08-03 19:27 GMT+02:00 Cristian Lorenzetto <
cristian.lorenze...@gmail.com>:
> yes internally lucene could make a lot of things for reaching target:
> - it could add info map
yes internally lucene could make a lot of things for reaching target:
- it could add info map {-1,0,1,undefined} 2 bit for every combination of
concrete fields. With additional short array it could make possible it. for
ordinable comparation. i think it is not so difficult to do for lucene
develo
Lucene cannot run such a query without doing a linear scan over all
documents in order to compare the values of both fields, this is why we do
not have a query for it. The recommended approach in such cases is to index
a third field where the difference between value1 and value2 is computed at
inde
You can read about the inception of the feature at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6198 and since two-phase
iteration is mostly useful for conjunctions, you could look at
ConjunctionDISI which is the class that takes care of intersecting multiple
iterators. I am afraid there is not muc
hi i need a help.
I want create a lucene query parser for adding evaluation of expression in
lucene
value1:>= value2 where value1 and value2 are 2 field names in the
document.
how to do it?
for me it is sufficient also to work programatically creating a new Query
Object making it
Hi,
Could you point to some resource where I can read about two-phase
iterators in slightly more depth? There are still confusions for me as
to how exactly it works.
- Best
Parit
On 08/02/2016 07:07 PM, Andres de la Peña wrote:
Thanks Adrien, this is very helpful.
I have just read your blo
