Got it. Thanks Hoss!
regards, -Hui On 8/16/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > : Any of you know whether the new "q:*.*" query performs better than the > : get-around solutions like using a ranged query? I would guess so, but I > : haven't looked into the Lucene implementation. > > it's faster -- it has almost no work to do relative the range query > version. > > > > -Hoss > > -- Regards, -Hui
