ssues outstanding, lets call
it good, run RAT on the 3.0.3 branch to fix any issues about headers, update
the changelog files to represent the changes in 3.0.3 from 2.9.4 ~P
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:44:01 -0400
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
> From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.ne
Thanks :)
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> No real way of doing that, if you want scoring to be reliable use one index
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Omri Suissa >wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Itamar.
> > So there is a way to combine results from 2 indexes or we have to i
No real way of doing that, if you want scoring to be reliable use one index
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Omri Suissa wrote:
> Thanks, Itamar.
> So there is a way to combine results from 2 indexes or we have to index
> everything one the same index?
>
> Omri
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, It
Thanks i'll read it.
I just wanna be sure that we have all the tools to answer the problem that
we are facing before i go deeper.
Omri
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Andy Hopper wrote:
> Yes, you will be able to do this. In order to help you get up to speed
> quickly, you really should read a
Thank you Itamar.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> Lucene.Net 2.9.4 is compatible with the Java version bearing the same
> version number, so is 3.0.3
>
> We will soon begin porting the 3.6 version
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Omri Suissa >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
Hi,
Thanks a lot. we are building an enterprise solution so i want to be sure
that we are doing the right decision. what is an index management engine?
Omri
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Andy Hopper wrote:
> Hello, Omri-
>
> Yes, Lucene is able to index practically any type of content, includ
Yes, you will be able to do this. In order to help you get up to speed quickly,
you really should read a reference like Lucene in Action (sent the link in an
earlier reply).
Original Message
From: "Omri Suissa"
Sent: 8/7/2012 7:46:07 AM
To: "lucene-net-user"
Subject: Unknown number o
Thanks, Itamar.
So there is a way to combine results from 2 indexes or we have to index
everything one the same index?
Omri
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> The score has only meaning within the same query on one index. You cannot
> rely on it for sorting between querie
Yes, this is fully supported.
On 2012-08-07 13:45, Omri Suissa wrote:
Hi all,
We would like to add unknown number of fields to a document and later to
search on these fields; can we perform this task using lucene.net?
For example:
The doc will have the following fields:
Title,
Content,
Type,
Te
Hello, Omri-
Yes, Lucene is able to index practically any type of content, including
databases. In order to do this, you need to have a way to represent the records
in your database as "documents" to Lucene. I highly recommend Lucene in Action
(http://www.manning.com/hatcher2/) as a learning re
Yes, Lucene.Net is exactly what you want
Solr is a search server, a wrapper around Lucene, and only available in Java
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Omri Suissa wrote:
> Hi all,
> Our product is written in .net, that's why we prefer to integrate
> lucene.net
> .
> We want to create an indexing
The score has only meaning within the same query on one index. You cannot
rely on it for sorting between queries or indexes
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Omri Suissa wrote:
> Hi all,
> We want to implement lucene.net in our product and I was wondering about
> the scoring. Is it relative to the
Lucene.Net 2.9.4 is compatible with the Java version bearing the same
version number, so is 3.0.3
We will soon begin porting the 3.6 version
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Omri Suissa wrote:
> Hi all,
> We are testing to implement lucene.net in our solution and i was wondering
> about lucene.ne
Hi Prescott,
Thanks, we want to start using Lucene.net and the .net 3.5 compatibility is
very important to us.
* Omri Suissa *
* **VP R&D*
* *
* Tel:+972 9 7724228 **DiffDoof .ltd**
*
* Cell: +972 54 5395206 **11, Galga
I also want to point out we brought back .NET 3.5 compatibility - hopefully
that gets some people excited
> From: geobmx...@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:55:01 -0700
>
>
Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: ita...@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> CC: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
>
> Act
.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
> > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > I can set a different build target, but I can't se
n, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
>
> I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual framework to
> 3.5 without doing it for all build configur
+1. Make sure you get the second edition which is compatible with Lucene
V2.9.2/V3.0.1. if I recall
-Original Message-
From: Kohlhepp, Justin W (Heritage Holdings (HHI))
[mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com]
Sent: 17 July 2012 16:15
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE
t: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:13 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to start with LUCENE.NET
I would suggest "Lucene In Action"; would be the best starting point.
It is based on the Java version but because the port of the c# version is so
close to the Java version
I would suggest "Lucene In Action"; would be the best starting point.
It is based on the Java version but because the port of the c# version is so
close to the Java version there are virtually no differences.
-Original Message-
From: Alberto León
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:08 PM
Using out of the box Lucene, yes.
-Original Message-
From: Kohlhepp, Justin W () [mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:39 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Expected behavior of phrase search with wildcard
Thanks for the
12:36 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Expected behavior of phrase search with wildcard
As is plainly stated in the plethora of "Lucene Query Syntax" pages on
the web, Lucene does not support wildcard terms in phrase queries.
As to "my phrase"* returning e
"my phrase"* to parse to
default_field:"my phrase" default_field:*.
-Original Message-
From: Kohlhepp, Justin W () [mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:52 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Expected behavior of phra
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Expected behavior of phrase search with wildcard
I'm a little new to Lucene so forgive me if I'm talking nonsense.
Is the Index field option NOT_ANALYSED?
Then using the KeywordAnalyser on the parser "state industr*" might just
work. Of course the nu
Original Message-
From: Kohlhepp, Justin W () [mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com]
Sent: 12 July 2012 15:52
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Expected behavior of phrase search with wildcard
Yes. If you read my original email, I had already tried that. It
returns zero rec
Yes. If you read my original email, I had already tried that. It
returns zero records.
-Original Message-
From: Simon Svensson [mailto:si...@devhost.se]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:45 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Expected behavior of phrase search with
Hi,
Have you tried using "state industr*", i.e. having the wildcard within
the quotes?
// Simon
On 2012-07-12 15:15, Kohlhepp, Justin W () wrote:
I have an index of about 30M records. One of the fields contains
company names. I am using an out-of-the-box QueryParser to create
queries. My
: 'gene...@incubator.apache.org' ;
> 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org
> '
>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
>
> +1
> (Sent from my Blackberry device)
> Brad Allan
> Development Lead
> Risk & Compliance
> Fiserv
+1, Job well done.
-Original Message-
From: Allan, Brad (Wokingham)
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:15 AM
To: 'lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org'
Cc: 'gene...@incubator.apache.org' ; 'lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene
2012 10:17 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: gene...@incubator.apache.org ;
lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
+1, I am on board
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Todd Carrico wrote:
> +1
>
> tc
>
> >
> &
+1, I am on board
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Todd Carrico wrote:
> +1
>
> tc
>
> >
> > Hey All,
> >
> > This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net
> > project (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the
> > Lucene.Net community to see if the community is read
+1
tc
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net
> project (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the
> Lucene.Net community to see if the community is ready to govern itself as a
> top level project.
>
>
> Here is a short list of our accomplish
+1
On Sunday, July 8, 2012, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
> (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community
> to see if the community is ready to govern itself as a top level project.
>
>
+1
Em 09/07/2012 21:54, Gregory Bell escreveu:
+1
Prescott Nasser 09/07/2012 3:44 AM >>>
Hey All,
This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
(incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community to
see if the community is ready to govern i
+1
>>> Prescott Nasser 09/07/2012 3:44 AM >>>
Hey All,
This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
(incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community to
see if the community is ready to govern itself as a top level project.
Here is a shor
+1
On 07/08/2012 1:44 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey All,
This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net
project (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the
Lucene.Net community to see if the community is ready to govern
itself as a top level project.
Here is
+1
On 07/08/2012 1:44 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey All,
This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
(incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community to
see if the community is ready to govern itself as a top level project.
Here is a
have also used Luke to test searching etc.
3. Yes I understand you have used some generics, just wondering if anyone
blogged what is new/how to use them etc.
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 09 July 2012 16:13
To: Lucene Users
Subject: R
>
> 1. Why is this happening, are we trying to optimise prematurely?
>
If this is a new index, it's possible that you don't have anything to index yet
written to memory. (I think..)
> 2. If so then do I need to ever worry about writer.optimise or does
> the indexes eventually optimise themsel
+1 for graduation
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Velazquez, Aldo wrote:
> [1] Ready for graduation
>
>
> Regards,
> Aldo.
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
> Enviado el: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 14:45
> Para: lucene-net-user@lu
[1] Ready for graduation
Regards,
Aldo.
-Mensaje original-
De: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Enviado el: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 14:45
Para: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org;
lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
CC: gene...@incubator.apache.org
Asunto: [
+1
Sendt fra min iPad
Den 08/07/2012 kl. 19.45 skrev Prescott Nasser :
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
> (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community to
> see if the community is ready to govern itself as a
+1
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 8:45 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: gene...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
Hey All,
f.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 9:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
I will refrain from voting either way for now as I wanted to raise
something.
As a PMC member of another project (Apache Jena) that recently graduated
fro
nto the differences in the process for that
>
>
>
> ~P
>
> > From: rve...@dotnetrdf.org
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
> > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2
+1
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-Original Message-
From: Prescott Nasser
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:44:33
To: ;
Reply-To:
Cc:
Subject: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
Hey All,
This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
(incubating o
well, I'll
look into the differences in the process for that
~P
> From: rve...@dotnetrdf.org
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 11:47:01 -0700
>
uot;zoolette"
Sent: 08 July 2012 11:19
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: SPAM-HIGH: Re: [VOTE] Apache Lucene.Net ready for graduation?
For me you get a +1
2012/7/8 Prescott Nasser
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene
+1 for graduation
I still think graduation should be in sync with the 3.0.3 release and a
press release on work towards 3.6 and 4.0 releases.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
> (incubat
My vote : +1
For me you get a +1
2012/7/8 Prescott Nasser
>
> Hey All,
>
> This is the first step for graduation for the Apache Lucene.Net project
> (incubating of course..). We're taking a vote for the Lucene.Net community
> to see if the community is ready to govern itself as a top level project.
>
>
> Her
From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 June 2012 17:07
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Disparity between API usage and Luke
Moray, Thanks I did catch that and been thinking about it. I finally
have the LIA book so some of this stuff is starting to make more sense.
Would
gt;>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Lingam, ChandraMohan J <
>>> chandramohan.j.lingam@intel.**com >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just did a simple test and Keywordanalyzer does indeed work like a
>>>> prefix
>>>> query if you put a
Moray, Thanks I did catch that and been thinking about it. I finally have
the LIA book so some of this stuff is starting to make more sense. Would
you be willing to show your Keyword Analyzer class?
thanks
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Moray McConnachie <
mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
}
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Lingam, ChandraMohan J <
>> chandramohan.j.lingam@intel.**com >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Just did a simple test and Keywordanalyzer does indeed work like a prefix
>>> query if you put a star at the end. Agree
Rob, just in case you missed it in the dialogue earlier, let me recommend to
your attention the PerFieldAnalyserWrapper mentioned by someone else. This
allows you to specify different analysers for different fields, but presents as
a single analyser. So during indexing and searching to benefit f
prefix
query if you put a star at the end. Agree with Simon. Most likely luke was
using keyword analyzer and somehow UI was not reflecting it?
Please post a small snippet of your index code and query code...
-Original Message-
From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
ields. If you want to match 6
> documents, then you have to add as six separate documents instead one
> document will all the values.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:55 PM
> To:
une 26, 2012 6:55 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
Sure, this is self-contained:
[Test]
public void QueryNonAnalyzedField()
{
var indexPath = Path.Combine(Environment.CurrentDirectory,
"testindex")
yword analyzer and somehow UI was not reflecting it?
>
> Please post a small snippet of your index code and query code...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:25 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Su
Message-
From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:25 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
Thanks, and there is no equivalent QueryParser syntax for that?
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Lingam
search, your best option is to
> simply use PrefixQuery and there is no need to put a "*" for prefixquery.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:57 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Su
@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:57 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
That is correct. I've verified in Luke 1.0.1 that both analyzers produce the
same results.
To make it interesting, back in my code, I switched ov
inal Message-
> From: Simon Svensson [mailto:si...@devhost.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:56 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
>
> Luke defaults to KeywordAnalyzer which wont change your term in any way.
, 2012 2:56 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
Luke defaults to KeywordAnalyzer which wont change your term in any way.
The QueryParser will still break up your query, so "Name:Jack Bauer"
would become (Name:Jack DefaultField
gt;
>> Interesting question is why is luke working/finding the match? I would
>> have expected Luke to not find any matches.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54 PM
>
ly indexed with Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED option.
Interesting question is why is luke working/finding the match? I would have
expected Luke to not find any matches.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject
D
> > option.
> >
> > Interesting question is why is luke working/finding the match? I would
> > have expected Luke to not find any matches.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: T
.Index.NOT_ANALYZED
> option.
>
> Interesting question is why is luke working/finding the match? I would
> have expected Luke to not find any matches.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1
would have
expected Luke to not find any matches.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Cecil [mailto:rob.ce...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
I can definitely try that. I just exp
I can definitely try that. I just expected QueryParser would respect the
case of the source string. I was hoping to avoid using the Query API
per-se, and just let the parser to the work for me.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Lingam, ChandraMohan J <
chandramohan.j.lin...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
>> var query = _parser.Parse("Id:BAUER*");
In your code, most likely, the value got converted to lower case (i.e. bauer*)
by the parse statement.
Whereas indexed value is in upper case as it is not analyzed (from screen shot).
Can you explicitly try using prefix query?
> Same results, apparen
It doesn't matter what analyzer you use if you do Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Rob Cecil wrote:
> Same results, apparently, when I use Luke 1.0.1.
>
> When I search for "Id:BAUER*" I get 15 hits in Luke, but in my custom app,
> zero.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:3
losely examine them against your issue):
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/core/old_versioned_docs/versions/3_5_0/fileformats.html
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:31:25 -0700
> > Subject: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usag
Might also be some minor file format changes ( I have not had a chance to
closely examine them against your issue):
http://lucene.apache.org/core/old_versioned_docs/versions/3_5_0/fileformats.html
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:31:25 -0700
> Subje
Same results, apparently, when I use Luke 1.0.1.
When I search for "Id:BAUER*" I get 15 hits in Luke, but in my custom app,
zero.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Rob Vesse wrote:
> You appear to be using Luke 3.5 which per the information on the Luke
> homepage (http://code.google.com/p/luke/
You appear to be using Luke 3.5 which per the information on the Luke
homepage (http://code.google.com/p/luke/) uses Lucene 3.5
Since Lucene.Net is currently on 2.9.4 I wouldn't be surprised to see
different behavior between the API and executing in Luke.
If you use a version of Luke which more c
Hi and thanks for your reply.
Yes, we should update to latest version, we haven't have time for that yet
:(
// Patric
On 26 June 2012 15:11, Simon Svensson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch catches all exceptions thrown when calling Searchable.Search,
> which exists in your stack trace. It should fi
Hi,
The patch catches all exceptions thrown when calling Searchable.Search,
which exists in your stack trace. It should fix the crashing problem.
Have you considered updating to the latest version, 2.9.4.1, which
contains many bugfixes, including the one you mention?
// Simon
On 2012-06-26
Haven't seen spam on this list before..
> From: rlrc...@msn.com
> To: monil_naic...@amat.com; two4on...@hotmail.com; rtwake...@hotmail.com;
> juleofden...@earthlink.net; mfornar...@yahoo.com;
> lucene-net-u...@incubator.apache.org; pmc8...@comcast.net
> Subject: Re:
> Da
Thanks a lot, It's the same I supossed :)
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Simon Svensson wrote:
> None in this example. The analyzer could be a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper, and
> the actual TokenStream retrieved would depend on the field specified. The
> fieldName parameter is not used in Standard
None in this example. The analyzer could be a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper,
and the actual TokenStream retrieved would depend on the field
specified. The fieldName parameter is not used in
StandardAnalyzer.TokenStream, I could have passed null if I knew that
when I wrote the code.
On 2012-06-15 14
Thank you very much, it works!!
But what is the meaning of "field"?
Thanks a lot :)
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Simon Svensson wrote:
> var analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer(Version.LUCENE_29);
> var textReader = new StringReader("hola mi nombre es Vicente");
>
var analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer(Version.LUCENE_29);
var textReader = new StringReader("hola mi nombre es Vicente");
var tokenStream = analyzer.TokenStream("field", textReader);
var terms = new List();
var termAttribute =
(TermAttribu
Thanks a lot Simon! maybe I could port a Spanish Lucene Analyzer to
Lucene.net...
Thanks :)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Simon Svensson wrote:
> It's easy to write analyzers, you basically chain together a few
> TokenFilters and call it a day. And to back up that statement I provide an
> exa
I presume that you mean a missing field, not a blank field. You can do
this by using TermRangeQuery and passing null for term values. A null
value means that it's an open end ([A To *] or [* TO Z]), two null
values means it will match anything ([* TO *]). The main difference
compared to MatchAl
Give blank entries some value that will never appear otherwise and search
on it, that's the easiest solution
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Trevor Watson
wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a way to search for a field being blank.
>
> We keep track of file extensions in our software and would
I would be interested in hearing a good solution for this as well. Currently,
I am handling missing values with the word: "(blank)".
Not sure if there is a capability to pull all the matching documents that don't
have a particular field.
-Original Message-
From: Trevor Watson [mailto:
It's easy to write analyzers, you basically chain together a few
TokenFilters and call it a day. And to back up that statement I provide
an example spanish analyzer written by someone who basically threw his
complete Spanish vocabulary into the stop word list. DictionaryLoader is
a class which
Thank you Simon, you can specify a
"Raven.Database.Indexing.Collation.Cultures.EsCollationAnalyzer,
Raven.Database" but you can't perform full text search queries because
this index don't tokenize the content.
http://ravendb.net/docs/client-api/querying/static-indexes/customizing-results-order
I s
Welcome,
See Configuring index options[1] to specify a custom analyzer that can
handle spanish content.
A quick check shows that Contrib.Analyzers does not contain a spanish
analyzer. There is a SpanishStemmer available in the Snowball contrib.
You could also use a spanish hunspell dictionar
Java Lucene has a Spanish analyzer with light stemming, it's 3 small
classes that should be trivial to port to .NET
See
http://lucene.apache.org/core/old_versioned_docs/versions/3_1_0/api/all/org/apache/lucene/analysis/es/SpanishAnalyzer.html
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:49 PM, vicente garcia wrot
ssage-
From: Kohlhepp, Justin W (Heritage Holdings (HHI))
[mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:42 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Implementing IDisposable / finalizer pattern to avoid index lock
issues
Nick,
I'm comfortable
Hey Justin,
Think of the commit as a normal ACID transaction. In a regular RDMS you
would add millions of records before committing - do it regularly, so the
transaction does not becomes too big. The documents will not be searchable
before the commit.
Optimization should be done after you are don
? Or
perhaps I should ask on the dev list?
Mostly I'm just curious. My implementation seems to be working fine so
that is not an issue.
Thanks,
~ Justin
-Original Message-
From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] [mailto:casper...@caspershouse.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:09
Agreed! I misunderstood what I remembered. I applied it too broadly. I'm
happily using Lucene.NET, and have not had any problems with cleanup, though I
am using a more explicit pattern. I also log a lot of details and other stuff
while I'm also closing the Lucene index. I have, after all, b
Brian,
The specific WCF case that you mention, yes there is specific cleanup that is
required that IDisposable doesn't cover.
However, this is the case wherever you need *any* specialized cleanup. This is
more a fault of those that extended ICommunicationObject from IDisposable, not
the other
Crap! I went to look up the original information I read about the using vs.
try/finally and instead stumbled upon MSDN's own documentation or it confirming
your statement: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yh598w02(v=vs.90).aspx.
However, MSDN also documents, for example within their WCF
Brian,
1) That is not true, using ultimately compiles down to a try/finally. It's
always called no matter how the block is exited.
2) This is a fault of the implementation. It is up to the implementer to
create a finalizer that disposes of resources that don't implement IDisposabe
but need d
1 - 100 of 1357 matches
Mail list logo
