https://lucene.apache.org/solr/4_6_0/solr-core/org/apache/solr/analysis/ReversedWildcardFilterFactory.html
?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:01 AM mosheB wrote:
>
> Hi, is there any sophisticated way [using the schema] to block brutal regex
> queries?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: https://lucene
Hi, is there any sophisticated way [using the schema] to block brutal regex
queries?
Thanks
--
Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
On 2/3/2020 12:06 PM, Rahul Goswami wrote:
I am working with Solr 7.2.1 and had a question regarding the performance
of wildcard searches.
q=*:*
vs
q=id:*
vs
q=id:[* TO *]
Can someone please rank them in the order of performance with the
underlying reason?
The only one of those that is an
Hello,
I am working with Solr 7.2.1 and had a question regarding the performance
of wildcard searches.
q=*:*
vs
q=id:*
vs
q=id:[* TO *]
Can someone please rank them in the order of performance with the
underlying reason?
Thanks,
Rahul
27; (numeric).
> Searching without wildcard also returns zero results...
>
> As I mentioned before: we are testing this all, so we are not really up to
> speed with the why-does-this-do-that, although I am trying to learn.
>
> Thanks for any other pointers you can provide.
> Gr
l Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: vrijdag 16 maart 2018 17:08
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: question regarding wildcard-searches
If you goal is to search prefixes only, I'd go away from the _text_ field all
together and use a "string" type. This wil
gt;>
>> Unfortunately that also gives no results (and it would not be practical, as
>> for this example the numbering only goes up till 19 but others go up into
>> the thousands etc)
>>
>> Anybody with a pointer on this?
>>
>> Thanks already,
gt;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: jagdish vasani [mailto:jagdisht.vas...@gmail.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 16 maart 2018 12:41
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: question regarding wildcard-searches
>
> Hi paesen,
>
> Value - EO.1954.53.1 is indexed
[mailto:jagdisht.vas...@gmail.com]
Sent: vrijdag 16 maart 2018 12:41
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: question regarding wildcard-searches
Hi paesen,
Value - EO.1954.53.1 is indexed as below Eo
1954
53
1
Dot is removed.try with wildcard -?
Like EO.1954.53.?? If you have 2 digits only in last..
I have
ot; wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We are experimenting with solr, and I have a (I think) basic-level
> question:
> we have a multiple fields, all copied into a generic field so we can
> search everything at once.
> However we have a (for us) strange situation doing wildcard sea
Hi everybody,
We are experimenting with solr, and I have a (I think) basic-level question:
we have a multiple fields, all copied into a generic field so we can search
everything at once.
However we have a (for us) strange situation doing wildcard searches for the
contents of one specific field
Solr does not analyze queries with wildcards in it. So, with ch*p-seq,
it will search for terms that start with ch and end with p-seq. Since
your indexer has analyzed all tokens before, only chip and seq are in
the index.
See
https://solr.pl/en/2010/12/20/wildcard-queries-and-how-solr-handles-them
I am using edismax query parser.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Selvam Raman wrote:
> Solr version - 6.4.0
>
> "title_en":["Chip-seq"]
>
> When i fired query like below
>
> 1) chip-seq
> 2) chi*
>
> it is giving expected result, for this case one result.
>
> But when i am searching with wildc
Solr version - 6.4.0
"title_en":["Chip-seq"]
When i fired query like below
1) chip-seq
2) chi*
it is giving expected result, for this case one result.
But when i am searching with wildcard it produce zero result.
1) ch*p-seq
if i use escape character in '-' it creates two terms rather than s
p T" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have several indexed string fields which is not tokenized and does not
>> have docValues enabled.
>>
>> When we do leading wildcard searches on these fields they are running very
>> slow. We were thinking that since t
ch is not tokenized and does not
> have docValues enabled.
>
> When we do leading wildcard searches on these fields they are running very
> slow. We were thinking that since this field is indexed, such queries
> should be running pretty quickly. We are using Solr 6.6.1. Anyone ha
Hi,
We have several indexed string fields which is not tokenized and does not
have docValues enabled.
When we do leading wildcard searches on these fields they are running very
slow. We were thinking that since this field is indexed, such queries
should be running pretty quickly. We are using
Hi,
You could try this:
drop wildcard stuff altogether:
1) Employ edgengramfilter at index time.
2) Use plain searches at query time.
Ahmet
On Friday, November 25, 2016 4:59 PM, Sandeep Khanzode
wrote:
Hi All,
Can someone please assist with this query?
My data consists of:
1.] John Doe
2.
Hi All,
Can someone please assist with this query?
My data consists of:
1.] John Doe
2.] John V. Doe
3.] Johnson Doe
4.] Johnson V. Doe
5.] John Smith
6.] Johnson V. Smith
7.] Matt Doe
8.] Matt V. Doe
9.] Matt Doe
10.] Matthew V. Doe
11.] Matthew Smith
12.] Matthew V. Smith
Querying ...
(a) Mat
Hi All, Erick,
Please suggest. Would like to use the ComplexPhraseQueryParser for searching
text (with wildcard) that may contain special characters.
For example ...John* should match John V. DoeJohn* should match Johnson
SmithBruce-Willis* should match Bruce-WillisV.* should match John V. F. Doe
Hi,
This is the typical TextField with ...
SRK
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 1:38 AM, Reth RM
wrote:
what is the fieldType of those records?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Sandeep Khanzode
wrote:
Hi Erick,
I gave this a try.
These are my results. Th
what is the fieldType of those records?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Sandeep Khanzode <
sandeep_khanz...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Erick,
> I gave this a try.
> These are my results. There is a record with "John D. Smith", and another
> named "John Doe".
>
> 1.] {!complexphrase inOrder=t
Hi Erick,
I gave this a try.
These are my results. There is a record with "John D. Smith", and another named
"John Doe".
1.] {!complexphrase inOrder=true}name:"John D.*" ... does not fetch any
results.
2.] {!complexphrase inOrder=true}name:"John D*" ... fetches both results.
Second observ
Thanks, Erick.
I am actually not trying to use the String field (prefer a TextField here).
But, in my comparisons with TextField, it seems that something like phrase
matching with whitespace and wildcard (like, 'my do*' or say, 'my dog*', or
say, 'my dog has*') can only be accomplished with a st
You have to query text and string fields differently, that's just the
way it works. The problem is getting the query string through the
parser as a _single_ token or as multiple tokens.
Let's say you have a string field with the "a b" example. You have a
single token
a b that starts at offset 0.
Hi Erick, Reth,
The 'a\ b*' as well as the q.op=AND approach worked (successfully) only for
StrField for me.
Any attempt at creating a 'a\ b*' for a TextField does not match any documents.
The parsedQuery in debug mode does show 'field:a b*'. I am sure there are
documents that should match.
An
You can escape the space with a backslash as 'a\ b*'
Best,
Erick
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Reth RM wrote:
> I don't think you can do wildcard on StrField. For text field, if your
> query is "category:(test m*)" the parsed query will be "category:test OR
> category:m*"
> You can add q.o
I don't think you can do wildcard on StrField. For text field, if your
query is "category:(test m*)" the parsed query will be "category:test OR
category:m*"
You can add q.op=AND to make an AND between those terms.
For phrase type wild card query support, as per docs, it
is ComplexPhraseQueryPars
Hi,
How does a search like abc* work in StrField. Since the entire thing is stored
as a single token, is it a type of a trie structure that allows such wildcard
matching?
How can searches with space like 'a b*' be executed for text fields (tokenized
on whitespace)? If we specify this type of qu
You don't need to ngram at all if your queries themselves are going to be
wildcarded.
Erik
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 17:21, Kelly, Frank wrote:
>
> Hello Lucene Folks,
>
> Newbie here - I've found how Solr does Wildcard searches of the form
&
Hello Lucene Folks,
Newbie here - I've found how Solr does Wildcard searches of the form
field:a* using the EdgeNGramFilterFactory
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.EdgeNGramFilterFactory
but I can't seem to dig up how to support wildca
o search on the user name. This means wildcard searches of
"fo*" and "ba*" both return "foo-bar", which is what we want.
We have a problem when someone types in "foo-b" as a prefix. I would like
to split this into "foo" and "b", t
rst reflex when you encounter things like this
...
Best
Erick
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>> We're having difficulty with some wildcard searches in Solr 4.0Beta.
>> We're using a copyField to write a "tdate" to a "text_general" fi
unter things like
this ...
Best
Erick
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>> We're having difficulty with some wildcard searches in Solr
>> 4.0Beta. We're using a copyField to write a "tdate" to a
>> "text_general" field. We are
> We're having difficulty with some wildcard searches in Solr
> 4.0Beta. We're using a copyField to write a "tdate" to a
> "text_general" field. We are using the default definition
> for the "text_general" field type.
>
> indexed=
Hi,
We're having difficulty with some wildcard searches in Solr 4.0Beta. We're
using a copyField to write a "tdate" to a "text_general" field. We are using
the default definition for the "text_general" field type.
Here'
Maybe you can take a look at this Jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1604
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Alexander Cougarman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to do wildcard searches on multiple words? Here's an
> example: We need to search on the words "Dearl
Hi,
Is it possible to do wildcard searches on multiple words? Here's an example: We
need to search on the words "Dearly loved friends" using this
text:dearly * friends
This blows up Solr with this exception. From my Googling, I see that the error
has to do with too ma
; If I write this: Num:*1234* this will match docs containing 1234 but also
> docs containing 4321 which is wrong. this means this query: /Num*4321*/ and
> this query: /Num:*1234*/ return exactly the same result.
>
> Is this the wrong approach? has anybody tried the N-gram solution to thi
-Original Message-
From: maurizio1976
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:21 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Wildcard searches with leading and ending wildcard
Hi all,
I've been searching for an answer to this everywhere but I can never find an
answer that is perfect for my case, so I&#
is means this query: /Num*4321*/ and
this query: /Num:*1234*/ return exactly the same result.
Is this the wrong approach? has anybody tried the N-gram solution to this
problem?
thanks very much
Maurizio
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-searches-wi
Hi,
Highlighting is not working for wildcard searches when TermVectors
(hl.useFastVectorHighlighter) is enabled.
I wanted to use FastVectorHighlighter to improve the performance of search
results but when hl.useFastVectorHighlighter is enabled highlighting does not
work in case of wildcard
> I am using solr search application, try to search text with
> wildcard
> character getting some weird result.
>
> Case :- 1 q=tes*
>
> Result: test, test1, test2
>
> Case:- 1 q=test*
>
> Result: NONE
>
> Kindly help me to solve above problem.
Do you have stemming filter defined in your ana
Hello,
I am using solr search application, try to search text with wildcard
character getting some weird result.
Case :- 1 q=tes*
Result: test, test1, test2
Case:- 1 q=test*
Result: NONE
Kindly help me to solve above problem.
Thanks & Regards,
Satyam
matext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
> From: Salman Akram
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 2:49:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
.org
> > Sent: Sat, February 5, 2011 4:06:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > Commit in index flushes SOLR cache but of course OS cache would still be
> > useful? If a an index i
Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
> Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Commit in index flushes SOLR cache but of course OS cache would still be
> useful? If a an index is updated every hour then a warm up that takes less
> than 5 mins should be more than enou
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:33:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
> >
> > I know so we are not really using it fo
.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:38:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
> Well I assume many people out there would have indexes larger than 100GB and
> I don't think so normally you will have more RAM than 32GB or 64!
>
rom: Salman Akram
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:33:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
> I know so we are not really using it for regular warm-ups (in any case index
> is updated on hourly basis). Ju
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Tue, January 25, 2011 4:20:34 AM
> > Subject: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am facing performance i
t; - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; t...@statsbiblioteket.dk
> > Sent: Tue, January 25, 2011 6:32:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
> >
> > By warmed index you onl
ne.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 25, 2011 4:20:34 AM
> Subject: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
> Hi,
>
> I am facing performance issues in three types of queries (and their
> combination). Some of the queries take more than 2-3 mins. Index size
e.apache.org; t...@statsbiblioteket.dk
> Sent: Tue, January 25, 2011 6:32:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
>
> By warmed index you only mean warming the SOLR cache or OS cache? As I said
> our index is updated every hour so I am not sure h
By warmed index you only mean warming the SOLR cache or OS cache? As I said
our index is updated every hour so I am not sure how much SOLR cache would
be helpful but OS cache should still be helpful, right?
I haven't compared the results with a proper script but from manual testing
here are some o
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:20 +0100, Salman Akram wrote:
> Cache warming is a good option too but the index get updated every hour so
> not sure how much would that help.
What is the time difference between queries with a warmed index and a
cold one? If the warmed index performs satisfactory, then o
Hi,
I am facing performance issues in three types of queries (and their
combination). Some of the queries take more than 2-3 mins. Index size is
around 150GB.
- Wildcard
- Proximity
- Phrases (with common words)
I know CommonGrams and Stop words are a good way to resolve such issues bu
That was it! Thank you very much.
- Original Message
From: Robert Muir
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 5:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: wildcard searches not consistent
> but
>
> facto?y -- 0 (expecting 1)
>
>
you have stemming enabled for the
> but
>
> facto?y -- 0 (expecting 1)
>
>
you have stemming enabled for the field? stemming will make your wildcards
behave strangely. I would recommend you turn it off. because stemming likely
turned factory into factori or similar
> I thought these are all valid searches but am I missing somethi
Hi,
Still working on extending my proof of concept by working off the example
configuration and modifying the schema.xml. Having trouble with wildcard
searches:
factory OR faction -- 40 results (ok)
factory -- 1 result (ok)
faction -- 39 results (ok)
facti?n -- 39 results (ok)
fact* -- 40
Thank you so much guys. You solved my problem :) :)
The problem was I was using stemming, I removed that it works perfectly now.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Problem-with-Wildcard-searches-in-Solr-tp961448p963744.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing
hi,
sorry realised i had a typo:
> of course, non of this is going to sort out trying to match against the query
> "co?mput?r" because you've probably stemmed "computer" to "comput" or
> something
> at index time -- but if you add in a copyfield to an extra field that
> isn't stemmed
> at query
Hi,
earlier this week i started messing with getting wildcard queries to
be analysed
i've got some weird analysers doing stemming/lowercasing and writing
in the same rules into a custom queryparser didn't seem logical given
i just want the analysers to apply as they do at index time
i ca
!
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: imranak [mailto:imranak...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Juli 2010 23:55
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Problem with Wildcard searches in Solr
Hi,
Thanks for you response. The dismax query parser doesn't support it but I heard
the edismax parser sup
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:39 PM, imranak wrote:
> A general search like 'computer' returns results but 'com*er' doesn't return
> any results.
This is due to issues with wildcards and stemming.
"computer" is indexed and searched as "comput"... but it's not
generally possible to stem wildcarded ter
ubject: RE: Problem with Wildcard searches in Solr
Hi,
Thanks for you response. The dismax query parser doesn't support it but I
heard the edismax parser supports all kinds of wildcards. Been trying it out
but without any luck. Could someone please help me with that. I'm unable to
mak
Hi,
Thanks for you response. The dismax query parser doesn't support it but I
heard the edismax parser supports all kinds of wildcards. Been trying it out
but without any luck. Could someone please help me with that. I'm unable to
make leading and in-the-middle wildcard searches wor
,
-Original message-
From: imranak
Sent: Mon 12-07-2010 22:40
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
Subject: Problem with Wildcard searches in Solr
Hi,
I am having a problem doing wildcard searches in lucene syntax using the
edismax handler. I have Solr 4.0 nightly build from the trunk.
A
Hi,
I am having a problem doing wildcard searches in lucene syntax using the
edismax handler. I have Solr 4.0 nightly build from the trunk.
A general search like 'computer' returns results but 'com*er' doesn't return
any results. Similary, a search like 'co?mput?r
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM, AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
> > That'd be great. Please open an issue in Jira and attach a
> > patch. See
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute
> >
>
> Hi Shalin,
> I opened an issue (SOLR-1604) and attached a patch as well as a maven
> project to enable this f
> That'd be great. Please open an issue in Jira and attach a
> patch. See
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute
>
Hi Shalin,
I opened an issue (SOLR-1604) and attached a patch as well as a maven project
to enable this feature without applying the patch. I couldn't consume
ComplexPhraseQ
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM, AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
>
> > You can do it with the
> > complexphrasequery parser in lucerne contrib (I think that's
> > the name). You have to plug it in to solr though - someone
> > has already donethis bit I'm not sure if it was controbbed
> > back.
>
> I would be
> You can do it with the
> complexphrasequery parser in lucerne contrib (I think that's
> the name). You have to plug it in to solr though - someone
> has already donethis bit I'm not sure if it was controbbed
> back.
I would be happy to contribute it, what should i do?
he same problem with accentued characters. Cause the
> original token is not stored with this filter.
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De : Avlesh Singh
> À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Octobre 2009, 10h41mn
.
Laurent
De : Avlesh Singh
À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Octobre 2009, 10h41mn 56s
Objet : Re: Re : wildcard searches
You are processing your tokens in the filter that you wrote. I am assuming
it is the first filter being applied and removes the characte
nable wildcard queries, preserving the original token
> (while processing each token in your filter) might work."
>
> Could you explain this point please ?
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De : Avlesh Singh
> À : solr-user@lucene.
ease ?
Laurent
De : Avlesh Singh
À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Envoyé le : Lundi, 5 Octobre 2009, 20h30mn 54s
Objet : Re: wildcard searches
Zambrano is right, Laurent. The analyzers for a field are not invoked for
wildcard queries. You custom filter is not even getting executed at
On 10/05/2009 01:18 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Can_I_combine_wildcard_and_phrase_search.2C_e.g._.22foo_ba.2A.22.3F
Thanks for that link
When I said not filters, I meant Token
Zambrano is right, Laurent. The analyzers for a field are not invoked for
wildcard queries. You custom filter is not even getting executed at
query-time.
If you want to enable wildcard queries, preserving the original token (while
processing each token in your filter) might work.
Cheers
Avlesh
On
>
> First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
>
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Can_I_combine_wildcard_and_phrase_search.2C_e.g._.22foo_ba.2A.22.3F
When I said not filters, I meant TokenFilters which is what I believe you
> mean by 'not analyzed'
>
Analysis is a
Avlesh, I don't understand your answer.
First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
When I said not filters, I meant TokenFilters which is what I believe
you mean by 'not analyzed'
On 10/05/2009 12:27 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searc
>
> No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
>
Ah! Not like that ..
I guess, it is just that the phrase searches using wildcards are not
analyzed.
Cheers
Avlesh
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Christian Zambrano wrote:
> No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
>
> I couldn'
No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
I couldn't find a reference to this on either the solr or lucene
documentation but I read it on the Solr book from PACKT
On 10/05/2009 12:09 PM, Angel Ice wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a little question regarding the search engine when a wildca
Hi everyone,
I have a little question regarding the search engine when a wildcard character
is used in the query.
Let's take the following example :
- I have sent in indexation the word Hésitation (with an accent on the "e")
- The filters applied to the field that will handle this word, result i
rent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache.org
[mailto:solr-user-return-20352-laurent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache
.org] On Behalf Of Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:11 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard searches
Hi,
Another option for 1) is to use n-gr
rent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache.org
[mailto:solr-user-return-20352-laurent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache
.org] On Behalf Of Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:11 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard searches
Hi,
Another option for 1) is to use n-grams
t it via a custom
QParserPlugin.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: "Vauthrin, Laurent"
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:45:30 PM
> Subject: Wildcard searches
>
> H
t now.
1. Leading wildcard searches/suffix searches (e.g. *ickey)
I've looked at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-218. Is the
best approach to create a QParserPlugin and change the parser to allow
leading wildcards - setAllowLeadingWildcard(true)? At the moment we're
trying to
Thanks, Lance.
I recall reading that Lucene is used in a superfast RDF query engine:
http://www.deri.ie/about/press/releases/details/?uid=55&ref=213.
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Lance Norskog [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The Protégé project at Stanford has nice tools for editing
wildcard searches
Maybe there's a different way, in which path-like values like this are
treated explicitly.
I use a similar approach to Matthew at www.colfes.com, where all pages are
generated from Lucene searches according to filters on a couple of
hierarchical categories ('spa
r,
then
TreeNodePathAnalyzer, but now that it's PathAnalyzer I cna't help
thinking
it might have lots of applications
Jon
-Original Message-----
From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 August 2007 21:50
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Best use of wild
On Aug 9, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
lo - these things can happen when you get too many levels of
escaping needed.
Hopefully we can improve the situation in the future to get rid of the
query parser escaping for certain queries such as prefix and term.
+1 :)
this is something
it might
still be useful. I started off calling it HierarchyValueAnalyzer, then
TreeNodePathAnalyzer, but now that it's PathAnalyzer I cna't help thinking
it might have lots of applications
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sen
On 8/9/07, Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://66.209.92.171:8080/solr/select/?q=department_exact:Apparel%
> 3EMen's%20Apparel%
> 3EJackets*&fq=country_code:US&fq=brand_exact:adidas&wt=python
>
> The same exact query, with... wait..
>
> Wow. I'm making myself look like an idiot.
>
> I
http://66.209.92.171:8080/solr/select/?q=department_exact:Apparel%
3EMen's%20Apparel%
3EJackets*&fq=country_code:US&fq=brand_exact:adidas&wt=python
The same exact query, with... wait..
Wow. I'm making myself look like an idiot.
I swear that these queries didn't work the first time I ran them.
On 8/9/07, Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel free to run some queries yourself. We opened the firewall for
> this box...
>
> http://66.209.92.171:8080/solr/select/?q=department_exact:Apparel%
> 3EMen's\%20Apparel%
> 3EJackets*&fq=country_code:US&fq=brand_exact:adidas&wt=python
OK, so
Feel free to run some queries yourself. We opened the firewall for
this box...
http://66.209.92.171:8080/solr/select/?q=department_exact:Apparel%
3EMen's\%20Apparel%
3EJackets*&fq=country_code:US&fq=brand_exact:adidas&wt=python
++
|
Hm, I don't see any attachments, I'm forwarding them to you directly.
Would anyone else like to see them?
++
| Matthew Runo
| Zappos Development
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 702-943-7833
+--
Sure thing!
Heres 1, and 2.
1 - just a space.
2 - a "\ ".
++
| Matthew Runo
| Zappos Development
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 702-943-7833
++
On Aug 9, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Yonik Seeley
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
