lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Sibert" <chrissib...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Lucene features
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:27:31 GMT
Thanks for all the replies. I feel reassured with using Lucene. If I end up
doing anything with the application that I'm writing, I would like to look
at contributing some documentation of Lucene's features, and what it has to
offer.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leo Galambos" <Leo.G@seznam.cz>
To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Lucene features


> Doug Cutting wrote:
>
> >
> > I have some extensions to Lucene that I've not yet commited which make
> > it possible to easily define synthetic IndexReaders (not currently
> > supported).  So you could do things that way, once I check these in.
> > But is this really better than just ANDing the clauses together?  It
> > would take some big experiments to know, but my guess is that it
> > doesn't make much difference to compute a "local" IDF for such things.
>
>
> In this case, I think that the operator would be evaluated as "an
> implication" and not "AND" (=1-(((1-q1)^p+(1-q2)^p )/2 )^(1/p)).
> Obviously, you have to use an filter to filter out false hits (in case
> of q1->q2, the formula is true when q1 is false, so it is not what you
> really need), but it is not an issue with the auxiliary index. On the
> other hand, it is a feeling and it needs a test, you are right.
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message