lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: extensible query parser - Re: Proximity Searches behavior
Date Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:04:36 GMT
On Jun 9, 2004, at 4:39 PM, David Spencer wrote:
>> I like the idea of a flexible run-time grammar, but it sounds too 
>> good to be true in a general purpose kinda way.
> My idea isn't perfect for humans, but at least lets you use queries 
> not hard coded.

But in my idealistic view, getting something (near) perfect for humans 
is what a QueryParser is all about.  And, of course, this is domain and 
application specific in a lot of ways.

> [5] the point
> Be backward  compatible and "natural" for existing query syntax, but 
> leave a hook so that if you innovate and define new query expansion 
> code there's some hope of someone using it as they can in theory drop 
> it in and use it w/o coding. Right now if you create some code in this 
> area I suspect there's little chance people will try it out as there's 
> too much friction to try it out.

I'm still grasping for a happy medium between the current QueryParser 
and this idea of an awkward syntax general purpose pluggable parser.

Interestingly the current QueryParser is pluggable in some interesting 
ways thanks to the getters for each query time being overridable.  For 
example, disallowing wildcard and fuzzy queries, enhancing range query 
to handle different formats, and changing PhraseQuery into a 
SpanNearQuery are all tricks I'm including in Lucene in Action.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message