lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: KeywordAnalyzer vs. Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED
Date Thu, 24 May 2007 18:39:43 GMT
Terry,
I think you are right.  Just use UN_TOKENIZED, that will do what you need.

Otis
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/  -  Tag  -  Search  -  Share

----- Original Message ----
From: dontspamterry <dontspamterry@yahoo.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:20:11 PM
Subject: KeywordAnalyzer vs. Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED


Hi all,

I have an ID field which I index using the KeywordAnalyzer. Since this
analyzer tokenizes the entire stream as a single token, would you say the
end result is the same as using any analyzer and specifying this ID field as
untokenized? The latter approach does not use the analyzer so would that be
more "performant" than the KeywordAnalyzer since there is no call into the
analyzer's tokenization method? Is either approach acceptable or is there
one "proper" way of indexing fields where the entire field value requires an
exact match, i.e. untokenized? Thanks!

-Terry
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/KeywordAnalyzer-vs.-Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED-tf3811563.html#a10788664
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message