lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: Null or no analyzer
Date Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:41:55 GMT
On Oct 21, 2004, at 5:38 AM, sergiu gordea wrote:
> Erik Hatcher wrote:
>> I don't like the idea of users having to know how a field was indexed 
>> though.  That seems to defeat the purpose of a general-purpose 
>> QueryParser.
>>     Erik
> I agree that, but maybe lucene should provide some subclasses of 
> QueryParser that should deal this problems.
> I'm just a lucene user, not a lucene developer, but I have had to 
> implement a Extension for MultifieldQueryParser
> to fix some not wanted behaviour that I already discussed in the 
> mailing list. These problems that user face with creating the right 
> qeury strings, (with the special case of untokenized fileds) togheter
> with MultifieldQueryParser problems, MultiSearcher problems ... I 
> think that all together suggest the idea of creating a
> QueryParser class hierarchy.
>  What do you think about that?

Query parsing/expansion is the holy grail.  There are so many ways to 
do this sort of thing that I'm mostly of the opinion it is a 
per-project customization to get it tuned for the needs of that 

Nutch has done some nice things with query parsing/expansion and 

I'm all for a more extensible base to work from, no question.

I'm personally not fond of MultiFieldQueryParser - I much prefer 
aggregate fields that are indexed (not stored) to be used for queries.  
Blindly expanding queries across fields doesn't seem that useful to me.


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

View raw message