Nov 2006 22:18:13 -0500
: From: James Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: Re: 2.0 and Tokenized versus UN_TOKENIZED
:
: Thanks. That helps, but I've tried a lot of combinations and I forget
now.
: I'm usi
leave the query text
untokenized so it can match the untokenized value you indexed.
: Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:18:13 -0500
: From: James Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: Re: 2.0 and Tokenized versus UN_TOKENIZED
:
Thanks. That helps, but I've tried a lot of combinations and I forget now.
I'm using StandardAnalyzer for the index and query.I can't say for sure if
I've tried other cases. The specific combination is lastname:rhodes AND
city:"EAGLE RIVER" AND state:AK, Before TOKENIZED no match after TOKENIZED
m
Two questions come to mind...
1> what analyzer are you using for the *query*? Is it possible that when you
query for city you're using a tokenizer that breaks up your city code?
2> what about case? I'll assume that you have tried to search one-word
cities, so how the stream is tokenized won't br
