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
}
>>
>>
>> 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
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
here was a link to luke output screenshot which showed
> > that standard analyzer was in use for query parsing.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Simon Svensson [mailto:si...@devhost.se]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:56 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apach
@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
>
: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
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,
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
2:54 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 expected QueryParser would respect the
> case of the source string. I was hoping to avoid using the Query API
> per-se, and just let
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
ct: Re: SPAM-HIGH: Disparity between API usage and Luke
> From: rve...@dotnetrdf.org
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> 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.
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
