lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chuck Williams" <ch...@manawiz.com>
Subject RE: single field code ready - Re: URL to compare 2 Similarity's ready-- Re: Scoring benchmark evaluation. Was RE: How to proceed with Bug 31841 - MultiSearcher problems with Similarity.docFreq() ?
Date Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:29:08 GMT
Dave has done great work pulling this together.  However, the same
comment is true for DistributingMultiFieldQueryParser.  There is only 1
field, so both multi-field query parsers are equivalent to QueryParser.

Chuck

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Daniel Naber [mailto:daniel.naber@t-online.de]
  > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 3:36 PM
  > To: Lucene Developers List
  > Subject: Re: single field code ready - Re: URL to compare 2
Similarity's
  > ready-- Re: Scoring benchmark evaluation. Was RE: How to proceed
with
  > Bug 31841 - MultiSearcher problems with Similarity.docFreq() ?
  > 
  > On Tuesday 08 February 2005 00:06, David Spencer wrote:
  > 
  > > So, does this make sense and is it useful way of trying to
evaluate
  > the
  > > Similarities?
  > 
  > Is this the MultiFieldQueryParser from Lucene 1.4? Then it's "buggy"
  > anyway, so it probably doesn't make sense to test it. But even with
the
  > current SVN version I don't see how it makes sense to use
  > MultiFieldQueryParser for searches on just one field.
  > 
  > Regards
  >  Daniel
  > 
  > --
  > http://www.danielnaber.de
  > 
  >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
  > For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message