Chris,
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 03:25, Hoss wrote:
(NOTE: numbers in [] indicate Footnotes)
I'm rather new to Lucene (and this list), so if I'm grossly
misunderstanding things, forgive me.
One of my main needs as I investigate Search technologies is to restrict
results based on Ranges
Hoss writes:
(c) Filtering. Filters in general make a lot of sense to me. They are a
way to specify (at query time) that only a certain subset of the index
should be considered for results. The Filter class has a very straight
forward API that seems very easy to subclass to get the
Hoss wrote:
The attachment contains my RangeFilter, a unit test that demonstrates it,
and a Benchmarking unit test that does a side-by-side comparison with
RangeQuery [6]. If developers feel that this class is useful, then by all
means roll it into the code base. (90% of it is cut/pasted from
On Nov 22, 2004, at 9:25 PM, Hoss wrote:
I'm rather new to Lucene (and this list), so if I'm grossly
misunderstanding things, forgive me.
You're spot on!
But I was surprised then to see the following quote from Erik
Hatcher in
the archives:
In fact, DateFilter by itself is practically of no
On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:18 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Hoss wrote:
The attachment contains my RangeFilter, a unit test that demonstrates
it,
and a Benchmarking unit test that does a side-by-side comparison with
RangeQuery [6]. If developers feel that this class is useful, then
by all
means roll it
: Done. I deprecated DateField and DateFilter, and added the RangeFilter
: class contributed by Chris.
:
: I did a little code cleanup, Chris, renaming some RangeFilter variables
: and correcting typos in the Javadocs. Let me know if everything looks
: ok.
Wow ... that was fast. Things look
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:01 AM, Praveen Peddi wrote:
Chris's RangeFilter does not cache anything where as QueryFilter does
caching. Is it better to add the caching funtionality to RangeFilter
also? or does it not make any difference?
Caching is a different _aspect_. Filtering and caching are not
I think it depends on the query. If the query (q1)
covers a large number of documents and the fiter
covers a very small number, then using a RangeFilter
will probably be slower than a RangeQuery.
-Yonik
See, this is what I'm not getting: what is the
advantage of the second
world? :) ... in
Hmmm, scratch that. I explained the tradeoff of a
filter vs a range query - not between the different
types of filters you talk about.
--- Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it depends on the query. If the query (q1)
covers a large number of documents and the fiter
covers a very
On Nov 23, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: I did a little code cleanup, Chris, renaming some RangeFilter
variables
: and correcting typos in the Javadocs. Let me know if everything
looks
: ok.
Wow ... that was fast. Things look fine to me (typo's in javadocs are
my
specialty) but
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
First: Is there any reason Matt Quail's LongField class hasn't been
added to CVS (or has it and I'm just not seeing it?)
Laziness is the only reason, at least on my part. I think adding it
is a
: Note that I said FilteredQuery, not QueryFilter.
Doh .. right sorry, I confused myself by thinking you were still refering
to your comments 2004-03-29 comparing DateFilter with RangeQuery wrapped
in a QueryFilter.
: I debate (with myself) on whether add-ons that can be done with other
: code
(NOTE: numbers in [] indicate Footnotes)
I'm rather new to Lucene (and this list), so if I'm grossly
misunderstanding things, forgive me.
One of my main needs as I investigate Search technologies is to restrict
results based on Ranges of numeric values. Looking over the archives of
this list,
: Numeric Range Restrictions: Queries vs Filters
:
: (NOTE: numbers in [] indicate Footnotes)
:
: I'm rather new to Lucene (and this list), so if I'm grossly
: misunderstanding things, forgive me.
:
: One of my main needs as I investigate Search technologies is to restrict
: results based on Ranges
14 matches
Mail list logo
