Hi Peter,
Yes, with the tree it is pretty straightforward. I'd prefer to do it
that way, but what is the purpose of the new qParser then? Is it just
that the qParser was built with a different paradigms in mind where
the parse tree was not in the equation? Anybody knows if there is any
advantage?
I looked bit more into the contrib
org.apache.lucene.queryParser.standard.StandardQueryParser.java
org.apache.lucene.queryParser.standard.QueryParserWrapper.java
And some things there (like setting default fuzzy value) are in my
case set directly in the grammar. So the query builder is still
somehow involved in parsing (IMHO not good).
But if someone knows some reasons to keep using the qParser, please
let me know.
Also, a question for Peter, at which stage do you use lucene analyzers
on the query? After it was parsed into the tree, or before we start
processing the query string?
Thanks!
Roman
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Peter Keegan <peterlkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roman,
>
> I'm not familiar with the contrib, but you can write your own Java code to
> create Query objects from the tree produced by your lexer and parser
> something like this:
>
> StandardLuceneGrammarLexer lexer = new ANTLRReaderStream(new
> StringReader(queryString));
> CommonTokenStream tokens = new CommonTokenStream(lexer);
> StandardLuceneGrammarParser parser = new
> StandardLuceneGrammarParser(tokens);
> StandardLuceneGrammarParser.query_return ret = parser.mainQ();
> CommonTree t = (CommonTree) ret.getTree();
> parseTree(t);
>
> parseTree (Tree t) {
>
> // recursively parse the Tree, visit each node
>
> visit (node);
>
> }
>
> visit (Tree node) {
>
> switch (node.getType()) {
> case (StandardLuceneGrammarParser.AND:
> // Create BooleanQuery, push onto stack
> ...
> }
> }
>
> I use the stack to build up the final Query from the queries produced in the
> tree parsing.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Peter
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jason Toy <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd love to see the progress on this.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > The standard lucene/solr parsing is nice but not really flexible. I
>> > saw questions and discussion about ANTLR, but unfortunately never a
>> > working grammar, so... maybe you find this useful:
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/tree/master/src/java/org/apache/lucene/queryParser/iqp/antlr
>> >
>> > In the grammar, the parsing is completely abstracted from the Lucene
>> > objects, and the parser is not mixed with Java code. At first it
>> > produces structures like this:
>> >
>> >
>> https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/rcarepo/raw-attachment/wiki/MontySolrQueryParser/index.html
>> >
>> > But now I have a problem. I don't know if I should use query parsing
>> > framework in contrib.
>> >
>> > It seems that the qParser in contrib can use different parser
>> > generators (the default JavaCC, but also ANTLR). But I am confused and
>> > I don't understand this new queryParser from contrib. It is really
>> > very confusing to me. Is there any benefit in trying to plug the ANTLR
>> > tree into it? Because looking at the AST pictures, it seems that with
>> > a relatively simple tree walker we could build the same queries as the
>> > current standard lucene query parser. And it would be much simpler and
>> > flexible. Does it bring something new? I have a feeling I miss
>> > something...
>> >
>> > Many thanks for help,
>> >
>> > Roman
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - sent from my mobile
>> 6176064373
>>
>
