lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Johnson <>
Subject Re: problems with deleteDocuments
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:01:29 GMT
I think I follow you.  I don't have a problem with storing something like 
a primary key as UN_TOKENIZED, though I'm a bit baffled about why it 
didn't work as TOKENIZED, since the _only_ thing in that field is the 
value of the primary key (ie, the string value of some integer).  It seems 
like it should have matched exactly either way...unless perhaps the 
StopAnalyzer is tokenizing the primary key strangely.

What still confounds me is the second problem- where adding a new document 
that has identical fields to a deleted document fails to store the new 

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Erick Erickson wrote:

> This is exactly the behavior I'd expect.
> Consider what would happen otherwise. Say you have documents
> with the following values for a field (call it blah).
> some data
> some data I put in the index
> lots of data
> data
> Then I don't want deleting on the term blah:data to remove all
> of them. Which seems to be what you're asking. Even if
> you restricted things to "phrases", then deleting on the term
> 'blah:some data' would remove two documents.
> So, while UN_TOKENIZED isn't a *requirement*, exact total term
> matches *is* the requirement. By that, I meant that whatever
> goes into the field must not be broken into pieces by the indexing
> tokenizer for deletes to work as you expect.
> Best
> Erick

"Courage isn't just a matter of not being frightened, you know. It's being
 afraid and doing what you have to do anyway."
   Doctor Who - Planet of the Daleks
This message has been brought to you by Nick Johnson 2.3b1 and the number 6.

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

View raw message