Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48315 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2008 13:15:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2008 13:15:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 68868 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2008 13:15:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 68845 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2008 13:15:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 68834 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2008 13:15:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:15:34 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:15:21 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JFr3x-000560-PR for general@lucene.apache.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:15:13 -0800 Message-ID: <14949384.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:15:13 -0800 (PST) From: darkling235 To: general@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Exact match syntax In-Reply-To: <14930762.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: darkling235@aol.com References: <14930762.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org This may be a foolish question but if I tell Alfresco (which is what I am using by the way) to not tokenize this property field, it will save the results as a single string. In that case when I use lucene to search it will it really match AUDIO if AUDIO is in the string and not AUDIO_SLIDESHOW? I was worried that if the string was AUDIO, AUDIO_SLIDESHOW a search might not match against anything except AUDIO, AUDIOSLIDESHOW being searched for. I'll give it a try. Thanks I'll give it a try. darkling235 wrote: > > Lucene has been working well for us until the last few days when we hit a > snag. > > > We're trying to build a query to search a multiple value property to see > if it contains the value of AUDIO. However there is also a different value > for that property called AUDIO_SLIDESHOW. Documents with AUDIO_SLIDESHOW > but not AUDIO should NOT get returned by this query. > > > > Just to make it more complicated it is possible a document has both an > AUDIO value AND an AUDIO_SLIDESHOW value for that property. In this case > the document should be returned. > > So this property could be > property:AUDIO (RETURNED) > property:AUDIO_SLIDESHOW (NOT RETURNED) > property:AUDIO, AUDIO_SLIDESHOW (RETURNED) > > > Can anyone think of a query syntax that will allow us to get all documents > with AUDIO in that property but not AUDIO_SLIDESHOW? > > Is it possible to build a generic query to do this or do I need to do some > java programming? > > Any advice would be great > Thanks > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Exact-match-syntax-tp14930762p14949384.html Sent from the Lucene - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.