Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32715 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2007 22:55:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2007 22:55:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 55155 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2007 22:55:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 55122 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2007 22:55:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 55107 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2007 22:55:10 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:55:10 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.109.24.24] (HELO smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl) (194.109.24.24) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:55:01 -0800 Received: from k8l.lan (porta.xs4all.nl [80.127.24.69]) by smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0MMsekG016755 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:54:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from paul.elschot@xs4all.nl) From: Paul Elschot To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Technology Preview of new Lucene QueryParser Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:54:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <45A460E2.8090508@gmail.com> <45B2D976.8040707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701222354.39692.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Monday 22 January 2007 22:29, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : With my syntax you can get real precedence that mixes with how no > : precedence (Lucene's unary operators) works. No precedence is created by > : allowing you to make any operator resolve first...any operator that > : resolves first connected with another operator that resolves first will > : behave as if neither has precedence over the other and generate a single > : BooleanQuery. > > what i was trying to get at is that i don't think precedence is really the > issue -- it's the lack of unary operators. If the only way to get a > single BooleanQuery is to use operators that have the exact same > precedence, and all operators are binary, then how to you create the > equivilent of QueryParser "+a b c -d -e" ? ... if i remember your syntax > correctly the only way to match the same documents is... > "a & ( b | c ) ! d ! e" > > ...but it won't score the same way because the parens force a nested > boolean query to be created. I considered adding the removal of such nests to the surround query language, but I never took the time to actually do it. Anyway, which of the two forms is more user friendly? I wish I knew, but the lack of brackets in the prefix form is tempting. Thanks for spelling this out, Paul Elschot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org