lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From djd0383 <ddigm...@formos.com>
Subject Re: Upgrading 1.4 to 2.0 - Indexing Issue.
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:30:19 GMT

I have updated my doc.add() to use Store.YES...

>> 'search' is the desired search string
>> 'searchText' is the choosen indexing string
>> -both these strings are correctly entered

>I realized that. I was asking about an example of theactual strings that
>demostrates the problem.

I am currently searching for "test" which makes 'search' = "test*'.  Also I
do not remember the exact string for 'searchText' but it did start with
"test" in one occurrence.

>What is the wrong behavior you see? Is it that the same query text did not
>return the expected documents? Or do you see some results without, say, the
>correct summary? If this one is the case, most likely your application is
>counting on stored text so the change above might fix that.

I can use the debugger (and step through the index process) and see that
there is at least one occurence where a 'searchText' is added which contains
"test".  The problem though is that this one is not in the results when
searching.  Mean that I have found that these values are indexed (as far as
I know - indexWriter adds it), but when searching against them, they are not
coming up in the search.

>Yes and no. This should not cause the problem you now have. But this is not
>efficient, as opening a searcher takes time, and getting it to speed
>(warming up 'system IO') takes longer. You would see faster search if you
>use keep a single searcher instance to be used for queries (you can use the
>same searcher for concurrent searches) and re-open that searcher once in a
>while - when the index was updated. There were several discussions on this
>in the mailing list, and I think the FAQ also mentions this.

Thank you for the idea.  I think I will run this by the higher ups to see if
I can do this task next.


I hope this gives you a better idea of what I am trying to accomplish. 
Thank you for your help.




Doron Cohen wrote:
> 
> djd0383 <ddigmann@formos.com> wrote on 29/09/2006 11:20:37:
>> This all worked fine in v1.4 when using:
>>   doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns));
> 
> The equivalent of 1.4 use
>   doc.add(Field.Text("allText", searchColumns));
> would be with 2.0:
>   doc1.add(new Field("allText", searchColumns, Store.YES,
> Index.TOKENIZED));
> 
> So not storing the field content is one difference from your 1.4 code. I
> am
> not sure this is the problem cause, since I cannot tell if your
> application
> is using the stored content at all. But give it a try.
> 
>> This seems to build an incorrect index.  I know this is true because I
>> can see entries that are not indexed.  The searching and indexing have
> been
>> minorly editted from the v1.4 code and seem to be correct.
> 
> What is the wrong behavior you see? Is it that the same query text did not
> return the expected documents? Or do you see some results without, say,
> the
> correct summary? If this one is the case, most likely your application is
> counting on stored text so the change above might fix that.
> 
>> When you say open reader/searcher after closing writer.  I am currently
>> creating an instance of these after creating the query while a user is
>> searching.  Is this good enough?
> 
> Yes and no. This should not cause the problem you now have. But this is
> not
> efficient, as opening a searcher takes time, and getting it to speed
> (warming up 'system IO') takes longer. You would see faster search if you
> use keep a single searcher instance to be used for queries (you can use
> the
> same searcher for concurrent searches) and re-open that searcher once in a
> while - when the index was updated. There were several discussions on this
> in the mailing list, and I think the FAQ also mentions this.
> 
>> 'search' is the desired search string
>> 'searchText' is the choosen indexing string
>> -both these strings are correctly entered
> 
> I realized that. I was asking about an example of theactual strings that
> demostrates the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Upgrading-1.4-to-2.0---Indexing-Issue.-tf2358182.html#a6573081
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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


Mime
View raw message