On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 07:31 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
So phone boy would match documents containing phone the boy? That
doesn't sound right to me, as it assumes what the user is trying to do.
That is correct currently a match would be found. Here's a little
test case I'm
Hi,
Does Lucene support exact matching on a tokenized field?
So for example... if I add these three phrases to the index:
- The quick brown fox
- The quick brown fox jumped
- brown fox
I want to be able to do an exact field match so when I search for brown
fox I only get the last one returned.
Hm, beat me.
The code in question seems to be:
public RAMInputStream(RAMFile f) {
file = f;
length = file.length;
}
...which is called from:
/** Returns a stream reading an existing file. */
public final InputStream openFile(String name) {
RAMFile file =
Then we agree, and it is StopFilter that needs to be patched to take
into account the number of removed terms, and add appropriate
positional info to each term.
Otis
--- Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 07:31 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
So phone boy
Hi Otis,
On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 18:06 Europe/Amsterdam, Otis Gospodnetic
wrote:
Since 'files' is a Hashtable, neither the key nor the value (file) can
be null, even though the NPE in RAMInputStream constructor implies that
file was null.
Yep... pretty weird... but looking at
Hello,
On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 18:13 Europe/Amsterdam, Doug Cutting
wrote:
A new Lucene release is available.
Very nice. Thanks :)
Quick question regarding release note number 11:
What's the difference between IndexWriter.addIndexes(IndexReader[]) and
petite_abeille wrote:
Quick question regarding release note number 11:
What's the difference between IndexWriter.addIndexes(IndexReader[]) and
IndexWriter.addIndexes(Directory[]) beside the fact that one takes an
array of IndexReader and the other an array of Directory? Any functional
Wilton, Reece wrote:
Does Lucene support exact matching on a tokenized field?
So for example... if I add these three phrases to the index:
- The quick brown fox
- The quick brown fox jumped
- brown fox
I want to be able to do an exact field match so when I search for brown
fox I only get the last
That's why I emphasized that Hashtable doesn't allow nulls.
If this is happening often, then yes, that is the thing to be
suspicious about, and is easily to test by modifying your local copy of
RAMDirectory.
Otis
--- petite_abeille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Otis,
On Wednesday, Oct 22,
If I use an untokenized field, would fox match this as well? I need
to support both exact match searches and searches where one word exists
in the field.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:44 AM
To: Lucene Users List
To ensure I understand...
If you have:
1) A B C
2) B C
3) B C D
4) C
You want B C to match #2 only
But, C to match #1, #2, #3, and #4
If so, you can have a tokenized field and an untokenized one...
Use the untokenized for matching 'exact' strings
Use the tokenized for finding a single
Yes, that's what I'm doing. Just wanted to see what other ideas where
out there.
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:12 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Exact Match
There is no direct support for that. However,
12 matches
Mail list logo
