Hi,
we are currently evaluating lucene.
The data we'd like to index consists of ~ 80 collections of documents
(a few hundred up to 20 documents per collection, ~ 1.5 million documents
total; medium document size is in the order of 1 kB).
Searches must be able on any combination of
Hi,
thanks for all your answers, I think I collect some of the hints and ideas
rather than commenting all of them apart.
Doug Cutting writes:
Morus Walter wrote:
Searches must be able on any combination of collections.
A typical search includes ~ 40 collections.
Now the question
Tatu Saloranta writes:
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 01:44, Morus Walter wrote:
This might still be a feasible thing to do, except if number of collections
changes very frequently (as you need to reindex all docs, not just
incremental).
Well the number is slowly growing.
Another
Hi,
Are lots of different combinations of collections used frequently?
Probably not. If only a handful of different subsets of collections are
frequently searched, then QueryFilter could be very useful.
I did some test and thought the results might be interesting for others
also.
I ran
1- Add a stem(String) method and delegate to it the
calling of snowball frenchStemmer as :
public String stem(String term)
{
stemmer.setCurrent(term);
if (stemmer.stem())
return stemmer.getCurrent();
else
return term;
}
2- Add to
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Ferr=E9ro?= writes:
--- Morus Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit :
Hmm.
Isn't
org.apache.lucene.analysis.snowball.SnowballFilter
already
what you described?
Thanks for your information.
Where can I get this source code ?
I don't find it in the lucene
Hi,
is it intentional that '?' matches exactly one character within
wildcard terms but one or zero characters at the end of wildcard terms?
That is:
r?? matches r ra rab ...
whereas
r?b matches rab rbb ... and not rb
The AFAIK common definition of '*' and '?' (e.g. in unix glob pattern) is
to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Viewed as an information retrieval problem (not the best way to view it,
but this is just an initial approach), one could then (1) create a taxonomy
of drugs and a taxonomy of conditions, and (2) implement a concept-oriented
(taxonomy-oriented) search of the corpus
Rob Outar writes:
After running first query to get all attributes from all files in the given
directory, there were 17 files, each file has 5 attributes so 85 queries
were ran:
can you post the java code used for querying?
Actually I don't understand, why you have to use one query for each
Hi,
I'm currently planing a web application using lucene for search.
There will be two web server maschines responable for the application
and the searches. Two maschines basically to be failsafe, load is not
expected to be a problem initially, though this might change over time.
So scaling is a
Hi Jan,
thanks for your answer.
What part of the webserver are you expecting that will fail? The service or
the computer? Why would the computer hosting NFS be less likely to fail than
your computer hosting the webserver?
The computer.
Of course you're right with the nfs server. That's one
Doug Cutting writes:
Can I have a lucene index on a NFS filesystem without problems
(access is readonly)?
So long as all access is read-only, there should not be a problem. Keep
in mind however that lock files are known to not work correctly over NFS.
Hmm. Sorry, I was a bit unprecise
Hi,
im currently trying to understand how the standard query parser
handles operator precedence in a query like
a OR b AND c OR d
This is output by the toString method as
a +b +c d
so AND seems to have higher precedence than OR
Now if I try to check this and look at
a OR ( b AND c ) OR d
I see
a
Wilton, Reece writes:
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.
couldn't you use some start/end word (that never occurs in your texts)
as anchors?
That is index 'XXX brown fox
Caroline Jen writes:
I have a sample program that takes care of the search
based on one single pair of property and value in
the database. For example, visitors of the web site
can retrieve all articles written by Elizabeth Castro.
creator is the property and Elizabeth Castro is
the value
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
No, it is not safe. You should close the IndexWriter, then delete the
document and close IndexReader, and then get a new IndexWriter and
continue writing.
IIRC lucene takes care that you do so.
Locking prevents you from having an open IndexWriter and
modify the
Erik Hatcher writes:
On Sunday, December 7, 2003, at 08:21 PM, Esmond Pitt wrote:
I'm not clear whether this is a 'yes' or a 'no'.
I think other committers would need to weigh in on it. I'm fine with
making a change to check isDirectory as well and not deleting them
since Lucene
Hi,
I'm having problems understanding query parsers handling of AND and OR
if there's more than one operator.
E.g.
a OR b AND c
gives the same number of hits as
b AND c
(only scores are different)
and
a AND b OR c AND d
seems to be equivalent to
a AND b AND C AND d
which doesn't seem logical
Hi Dror,
thanks for your answer.
I'm having problems understanding query parsers handling of AND and OR
if there's more than one operator.
E.g.
a OR b AND c
gives the same number of hits as
b AND c
(only scores are different)
This would make sense if all the document that
Hohwiller, Joerg writes:
Am I safe disabling the locking???
No.
Can anybody tell me where to get documentation about the Locking
strategy (I still would like to know why I have that problem) ???
I guess -- but given your input I really have to guess; the source you
wanted to attach didn't
Doug Cutting writes:
Dror Matalon wrote:
There are two issues:
1. Having new searches start using the new index only when it's ready,
not in a half baked state, which means that you have to synchronize
the switch from the old index to the new one.
That's true. If you're doing updates
Jamie Stallwood wrote:
What Morus is saying is right, an expression without parenthesis, when
interpreted, assumes terms on either side of an AND clause are compulsory
terms, and any terms on either side of an OR clause are optional. However,
if you combine AND and OR in an expression, the
Morus Walter writes:
I attached the patch (made against 1.3rc3 but working for 1.3final as well)
and a test program.
Seems the attachments got stripped...
So once again:
The patch:
===File lucene/QueryParser.jj.patch===
*** QueryParser.jj.org Mon Dec 22 11:47:30 2003
Dror Matalon writes:
my $.02.
Before having patches, I think it's a good idea to agree on what the
right solution is.
I tried to raise that question in the first place. But there wasn't much
responce.
So I decided to make a concrete suggestion, how to change things.
Most of it is obvious
Hi Dror,
thanks for your answer. I really appreciate your comments.
Before having patches, I think it's a good idea to agree on what the
right solution is.
I tried to raise that question in the first place. But there wasn't much
responce.
Might be the time of the year when many
Hi Dror,
I was thinking about this issue, and currently I think that the only way to
define this type of queries formally, is to give the default operator it's own
precedence relativly to the precedence of 'OR' and 'AND'.
So there are two possibilities:
either the default operator has
Scott Smith writes:
I have some documents I'm indexing which have multiple languages in them
(i.e., some fields in the document are always English; other fields may be
other languages). Now, I understand why a query against a certain field
must use the same analyzer as was used when that
Peter Keegan writes:
What is the returned order for documents with identical scores?
have a look at the source of the lessThan method in
org.java.lucene.search.HitQueue:
protected final boolean lessThan(Object a, Object b) {
ScoreDoc hitA = (ScoreDoc)a;
ScoreDoc hitB = (ScoreDoc)b;
Goulish, Michael writes:
To really preserve the relationships in arbitrarily
structured XML, you pretty much need to use a database
that directly supports an XML query language like
XQuery or XPath.
If searching within regions is enough (something e.g. sgrep
Hi,
I'm currently trying to get rid of query parser problems with stopwords
(depending on the query, there are ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsExceptions,
e.g. for stop AND nonstop where stop is a stopword and nonstop not).
While this isn't hard to fix (I'll enter a bug and patch in bugzilla),
there's one
Ardor Wei writes:
What might be the problem? How to solve it?
Any suggestion or idea will be appreciated.
The only problem with locking I saw so far is that you have
to make sure that the temp dir is the same for all applications.
Lucene 1.3 stores it's lock in the directory that is defined
Erik Hatcher writes:
TS==I've not been able to get negative boosting to work at all. Maybe
there's a problem with my syntax.
If, for example, I do a search with green beret^10, it works just
fine.
But green beret^-2 gives me a
ParseException showing a lexical error.
Have you
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
Redirecting to lucene-user
--- Jim Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone tell me why these two queries would produce different
results:
+A -B
A -(-B)
A and +A are not the same thing when you have multiple terms in a
query.
Hmm. As far
Daniel B. Davis writes:
There was a lot of correspondence during December about this.
Is there any further resolution?
There's a patch and I hope it will find it's way into the lucene
sources.
see: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25820
Seems I missed the mail about Otis
Nicolas Maisonneuve writes:
hy,
i have a index with the fields :
title
author
content
i would make the same search type than Google ( a form with a textfiel). When the
user search i love lucene (it's not a phrase query but just the text in the
textfield ), i would like search in
tom wa writes:
From: Erik Hatcher
On Jan 29, 2004, at 5:08 AM, tom wa wrote:
I'm trying to create an index which can also be searched with date
ranges. My first attempt using the Lucene date format ran in to
trouble after my index grew and I couldn't search over more than a few
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 13 February 2004 12:18, Julien Nioche wrote:
If you want to limit the set of Documents you're querying, you should
consider using Filter objects and send it to the searcher along with your
Query.
Hm, hard to find information about Filters...I actually
Dhruba Borthakur writes:
Hi folks,
I am using the latest and greatest Lucene jar file and am facing a problem
with
deleting documents from the index. Browsing the mail archive, I found that
the
following email (June 2003) listed the exact problem that I am encountering.
In short: I am
Rasik Pandey writes:
As a side note, regarding the Too many open files issue, has anyone noticed that
this could be related to the JVM? For instance, I have a coworker who tried to run a
number of optimized indexes in a JVM instance and a received the Too many open
files error. With the
Michael Steiger writes:
I am using an IndexSearcher for querying the index but for deletions I
need to use the IndexReader. I now know that I can have Readers and a
Writer open concurrently but IndexReader.delete can only be used if no
Writer is open.
You should be aware that an
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
This looks nice.
However, what happens if you have two Java processes that work on the
same index, and give it different lock directories?
They'll mess up the index.
Is that different to having two java processes using different java.io.tempdir?
I had that problem
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
And if you do not use QueryParser, then things work?
If so, then this is likely caused by the fact that your Term contains a
'special' character, '-'.
Actually I was going to suggest a fix for '-' within words in the
query parser.
The was a suggested fix, that
Michael Steiger writes:
Depends on your application, but if you can, it's better to keep IndexSearcher
open until the index changes.
Otherwise you will have to open all the index files for each search.
Good tip. So I have to synchronize (logically) my search routine with
any updates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
I want to store numbers (id) in my index:
long id = 1069421083284;
doc.add(Field.UnStored(in, String.valueOf(id)));
But searching for id:1069421083284 doesn't return any hits.
If your field is named 'in' you shouldn't search in 'id'.
Doug Cutting writes:
Morus Walter wrote:
Now I think this can be fixed in the query parser alone by simply allowing
'-' within words.
That is change
#_TERM_CHAR: ( _TERM_START_CHAR | _ESCAPED_CHAR )
to
#_TERM_CHAR: ( _TERM_START_CHAR | _ESCAPED_CHAR | - )
As a result, query
Chad Small writes:
Here is my attempt at a KeywordAnalyzer - although is not working? Excuse the
length of the message, but wanted to give actual code.
With this output:
Analzying HW-NCI_TOPICS
org.apache.lucene.analysis.WhitespaceAnalyzer:
[HW-NCI_TOPICS]
Hi Chad,
But I assume this fix won't come out for some time. Is there a way I can get this
fix sooner?
I'm up against a deadline and would very much like this functionality.
Just get lucenes sources, change the line and recompile.
The difficult part is to get a copy of JavaCC 2 (3 won't
Chad Small writes:
I'm getting this with 3.2:
javacc-check:
BUILD FAILED
file:D:/applications/lucene-1.3-final/build.xml:97:
##
JavaCC not found.
JavaCC Home: /applications/javacc-3.2/bin
JavaCC JAR:
Erik Hatcher writes:
Why not do the unique sequential number replacement at index time
rather than query time?
how would you do that? This requires to know the ids that will be added
in future.
Let's say you start with strings 'a' and 'b'. Later you add a document
with 'aa'. How do you know
Rosen Marinov writes:
Short answer: it depends.
Questions for you to answer:
What field type and analyzer did you use during indexing? What
analyzer used with QueryParser? What does the generated Query.toString
return?
in both cases SimpleAnalyzer
QueryParser.parse(\abc\)
Ryan Sonnek writes:
using lucene 1.3-final, it appears to only search the first field with that name.
here's the code i'm using to construct the index, and I'm using Luke to check that
the index is created correctly. Everything looks fine, but my search returns empty.
do i have to use a
Alex McManus writes:
Maybe your fields are too long so that only part of it gets indexed (look
at IndexWriter.maxFieldLength).
This is interesting, I've had a look at the JavaDoc and I think I
understand. The maximum field length describes the maximum number of unique
terms, not the
Claude Devarenne writes:
Hi,
I have over 60,000 documents in my index which is slightly over a 1 GB
in size. The documents range from the late seventies up to now. I
have indexed dates as a keyword field using a string because the dates
are in MMDD format. When I do range queries
Kevin Burton writes:
How much interest is there for this? I have to do this for work and
will certainly take the extra effort into making this a standard Lucene
feature.
Sounds interesting.
How would you handle deletions?
Morus
Hi Mark,
I've had this running OK from the command line and in Eclipse on XP.
I suspect it might be because you're running a different OS? The Classfinder tries
to split the system property
java.class.path on the ; character but I forgot different OSes have different
seperators.
Let me
Claude Devarenne writes:
My question is: should the queryParser catch that there is no term
before trying to add a clause when using a StandardAnalyzer? Is this
even possible? Should the burden be on the application to either catch
the exception or parse the query before handing it
Bill Tschumy writes:
I would think the following strings passed to the QueryParser should
yield the same results:
#1: +telescope AND !operate
#2: (+telescope) AND (!operate)
However the first string seems to give the correct results while the
second gives zero hits. Am I
Terry Steichen writes:
I can't get negative boosts to work with QueryParser. Is it possible to do so?
If you change QueryParser ;-)
Morus
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Daniel Naber writes:
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 13:19, Terry Steichen wrote:
I can't get negative boosts to work with QueryParser. Is it possible to do
so?
Isn't that the same as using a boost 1, e.g. 0.1? That should be possible.
no.
a^-1 OR b
A boost of -1 means that the score
sergiu gordea writes:
Hi all,
I want to discuss a little problem, lucene doesn't support *Term like
queries.
I know that this can bring a lot of results in the memory and therefore
it is restricted.
That's not the reason for the restriction. That's possible with a* also.
The
Peter Pimley writes:
My documents are not stored in their original form by lucene, but in a
seperate database. My lucene docs do however store the primary key, so
that I can fetch the original version from the database to show the user
(does that sound sane?)
yes.
I see that the
Hi David,
Based on this mail I wrote a ngram speller for Lucene. It runs in 2
phases. First you build a fast lookup index as mentioned above. Then
to correct a word you do a query in this index based on the ngrams in
the misspelled word.
Let's see.
[1] Source is attached and I'd
tokens:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27491
(Morus Walter via Otis)
This change is unlikely to introduce the behaviour you describe, since
it affects '-' within words only, not at start.
So there is a change for a-b between 1.3 and 1.4
1.3 gives a -b
1.4 gives a b or one
Chris Fraschetti writes:
can someone assist me in building or deny the possibility of combing a
range query and a standard query?
say for instance i have two fields i'm searching on... one being the a
field with an epoch date associated with the entry, and the
content so how can I make
Chris Fraschetti writes:
I've more or less figured out the query string required to get a range
of docs.. say date[0 TO 10]assuming my dates are from 1 to 10 (for
the sake of this example) ... my query has results that I don't
understand. if i do from 0 TO 10, then I only get results
David Spencer writes:
could you put the current version of your code on that website as a java
Weblog entry updated:
http://searchmorph.com/weblog/index.php?id=23
thanks
Great suggestion and thanks for that idiom - I should know such things
by now. To clarify the issue, it's just
Marco Schmidt writes:
I'm trying to find out whether Lucene is an option for a project of
mine. I have texts which also have a date and a list of numbers
associated with each of them. These numbers are ID values which connect
the article to certain categories. So a particular article X
Ulrich Mayring writes:
Hi all,
first, here's how to reproduce the problem:
Go to http://www.denic.de/en/special/index.jsp and enter obscure
service in the search field. You'll get 132 hits. Now enter obscure
service* - and you only get 1 hit.
The above website is running Lucene
Ulrich Mayring writes:
Will do, thank you very much. However, how do I get at the analyzed form
of my terms?
Instanciate the analyzer, create a token stream feeding your input,
loop over the tokens, output the results.
Morus
Ulrich Mayring writes:
Daniel Naber wrote:
AND always refers to the terms on both sides, +/- only refers to the term
on the right. So a AND b - +a +b is correct.
*slap forehead* - you're right. Wasn't there something about operator
precedence way back when ;-)
Yes. January. And
Otis Gospodnetic writes:
That's likely because you used an Analyzer that stripped the XML (, ,
etc.) from the original text. If you want to preserve the original
text, use an Analyzer that doesn't throw your XML away. You can write
your own Analyzer that doesn't discard anything, for
Ernesto De Santis writes:
Hi Aviran
Thanks for response.
I forgot important information for you understand my issue.
My process do some like this:
The index have contents from differents sources, identified for a special
field 'source'.
Then the index have documents with source: S1 or
Chris Fraschetti writes:
Is there a way to via the parser or the query retrieve a list of the
stop words removed by the analyzer? or should i just check my query
against .STOPWORDS and do it myself?
Query parser does not provide that info.
Of course you might consider adding this inside query
Bernhard Messer wrote
Hi,
try that query:
MyKeywordField:ABC
Why should that help?
foo:(bla) and foo:bla create the same query:
java -classpath lucene-1.4.1/lucene-1.4.1.jar
org.apache.lucene.queryParser.QueryParser 'foo:(bla)'
foo:bla
java -classpath lucene-1.4.1/lucene-1.4.1.jar
Chris Fraschetti writes:
So i decicded to move my epoch date to the 20040608 date which fixed
my boolean query problem in regards to my current data size (approx
600,000)
but now as soon as I do a query like ... a*
I get the boolean error again. Google obviously can handle this
sergiu gordea writes:
Daan Hoogland wrote:
H all,
I try to create different indices using different Analyzer-classes. I
tried standard, german, russian, and cjk. They all produce exactly the
same index file (md5-wise). There are over 280 pages so I expected at
least some differences.
Robinson Raju writes:
The way i have done is ,
if there is a wildcard , Use WildCardQuery ,
else other.
Here searchFields is an array which contains the column names . search
string is the value to be searched.
if ((searchString.indexOf(IOOSConstants.ASTERISK) -1)
Miro Max writes:
String cont = rs.getString(x);
d.add(Field.Text(cont, cont));
writer.addDocument(d);
to get results from a database into lucene index. but
when i check println(d) i can see the german stopwords
too. how can i eliminate this?
Stopwords in an analyzer don't make the
Rupinder Singh Mazara writes:
hi erik and everyone else
ok i will buy the book ;)
but this still does not solve the problem of
why String x = \jakarta apache\~100; is being transalted as a
PhraseQuery
FULL_TEXT:jakarta apache~100
is the correct query beining formed ? or is
Aviran writes:
You can use WhiteSpaceAnalyzer
Can he? If Elections 2004 is one token in the subject field (keyword),
this will fail, since WhiteSpeceAnalyzer will tokenize that to `Elections'
and `2004'.
So I guess he has to write an identity analyzer himself unless there is
one provided
Erik Hatcher writes:
however perhaps it should be. Or perhaps there are other options to
solve this recurring dilemma folks have with Field.Keyword indexed
fields and QueryParser?
I think one could introduce a special syntax in query parser for
keyword fields. Query parser wouldn't
Christoph Kiehl writes:
AFAIK you should never open an IndexWriter and an IndexReader at the
same time. You should use only one of them at a time but you may open as
many IndexSearchers as you like for searching.
You cannot open an IndexSearcher without opening an IndexReader (explicitly
Daniel Naber writes:
On Thursday 28 October 2004 19:03, Justin Swanhart wrote:
Have you tried making a term query by hand and testing to see if it
works?
Term t = new Term(field, this is a \test\);
PhraseQuery pq = new PhraseQuery(t);
That's not a proper PharseQuery, it searches
Bill Janssen writes:
Try to see the behavior if you want to have a single term query
juat something like: robust .. and print out the query string ...
Sure, that works fine. For instance, if you have the three default
fields title, authors, and contents, the one-word search
robust
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Christoph,
Thats what I thought. But what I'm seeing is this:
- open
reader for searching
(the reader is opening an index on a remote machine
(via UNC) which takes a couple seconds)
- meanwhile the other service opens
an IndexWriter and adds a document
(the
Daniel Taurat writes:
Hi,
I have just another stupid parser question:
There seems to be a special handling of the dash sign - different from
Lucene 1.2 at least in Lucene 1.4.RC3
StandardAnalyzer.
Examples (1.4RC3):
A document containing the string dash-test is matched by the following
william.sporrong writes:
Does it have something to do with the
QueryParser guessing what kind of query it is by examining the string and
thus presumes that the first string should not be parsed into a PhraseQuery?
QueryParser creates a PhraseQuery for words that are tokenized to more
than one
Sanyi writes:
This query works as expected:
validword AND stopword
(throws out the stopword part and searches for validword)
This query seems to crash:
stopword AND validword
(java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -1)
Maybe it can't handle the case if it had to remove the very
Sanyi writes:
Thanx for your replies guys.
Now, I was trying to locate the latest patch for this problem group, and
the last thread I've
read about this is:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25820
It ends with an open question from Morus:
If you want me to change the
Sanyi writes:
How to perform phrase searches for more than four words?
This works well with 1.4.2:
aa bb cc dd
I pass the query as a command line parameter on XP: \aa bb cc dd\
QueryParser translates it to: text:aa text:bb text:cc text:dd
Runs, searches, finds proper matches.
This
K Kim writes:
I just started to play around with Lucene. I was
wondering if searching and indexing can be done
simultaneously from different processes (two different
processes.) For example, searching is serviced from a
web appliation, while indexing is done periodically
from a
Sanyi writes:
Enumerating the terms using WildcardTermEnum and an IndexReader seems to be
too buggy to use.
If there's a bug, it should be tracked down, not worked around...
But it looks ok to me:
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.StandardAnalyzer;
import org.apache.lucene.index.*;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i need to solve this search:
number: -10
range: -50 TO 5
i need help..
i dont find anything using google..
If your numbers are in the interval MIN/MAX and MIN0 you can shift
that to a positive interval 0 ... (MAX-MIN) by subtracting MIN from
each number.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this solution was the first that i tried.. but this does not run correctly..
because:
when we try to sort this number in alphanumeric order we obtain that number
-0010 is higher than -0001
right. I failed to see that.
So you would have to use a complement for
Sanyi writes:
If there's a bug, it should be tracked down, not worked around...
Sure, but I'm working with 20million records and it takes about 25 hours to
re-index, so I'm
looking for ways that doesn't require reindexing.
why reindex?
My code was:
WildcardTermEnum wcenum =
Kauler, Leto S writes:
Would anyone have any suggestions on how this could be done? I was
thinking maybe the QueryParser would have to be changed/extended to
accept a separator other than colon :, something like = for example
to indicate this clause is not to be tokenised.
I suggested
Erik Hatcher writes:
If your query isn't entered by users, you shouldn't use query parser in
most cases anyway.
I'd go even further and say in all cases.
If you use lucene as a search server you have to provide the query somehow.
E.g. we have an php application, that sends queries to a
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
Terence Lai writes:
Look likes that the wildcard query disappeared. In fact, I am expecting
text:java* developer to be returned. It seems to me that the QueryParser
cannot handle the wildcard within a quoted String.
That's not just QueryParser.
Lucene itself doesn't handle wildcards
David Townsend writes:
So the short question is, should the hits object be changing and what is the
best way to delete all the results of a search (it's a range query so I can't
use delete(Term term)?
The hits object caches only part of the hits (initially the first 100 (?)).
This cache
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
