Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66882 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2004 16:08:54 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2004 16:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 56716 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2004 16:07:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 56686 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2004 16:07:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 56664 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2004 16:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c000.snv.cp.net) (209.228.32.83) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2004 16:07:59 -0000 Received: (cpmta 1374 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2004 08:08:01 -0800 Received: from 128.143.26.2 (HELO ?128.143.26.2?) by smtp.hatcher.net (209.228.32.83) with SMTP; 27 Feb 2004 08:08:01 -0800 X-Sent: 27 Feb 2004 16:08:01 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1A4E75B8-693F-11D8-8DB7-000393A564E6@ehatchersolutions.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Erik Hatcher Subject: Re: Indexing multiple instances of the same field for each docume nt Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:07:55 -0500 To: "Lucene Users List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Feb 27, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Moray McConnachie wrote: >> Are you using QueryParser? Try using a TermQuery("product", >> "PROD_A") >> when indexing as a Keyword and see what you get. If that finds it, >> then you are suffering from analysis paralysis. QueryParser, Keyword >> fields, and analyzers are a very "interesting" combination. > > Yes, it works correctly by using a straight term query. > > Does this mean that whenever I want to do keyword searches, I must > avoid > QueryParser? Not necessarily. This is a bit of an involved issue, and I posted a more extensive reply on this a few weeks ago (pasting a bit of our Lucene in Action discussion on it - perhaps search for "KeywordAnalyzer" to find that mail) Look into PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper. > Is it also the case that QueryParser is comparatively slow? I haven't > done > any heavy-duty testing of this, and of course the use of the .NET > platform > may not be helping, but that is my perception. Slow, nah... not on the Java side of things at least. Erik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org