lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doron Cohen" <>
Subject Re: Fields with the same name?? - Was Re: Payloads and tokenizers
Date Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:02:51 GMT
> payload and the other part for storing, i.e. something like this:
>>    Token token = new Token(...);
>>    token.setPayload(...);
>>    SingleTokenTokenStream ts = new SingleTokenTokenStream(token);
>>    Field f1 = new Field("f","some-stored-content",Store.YES,Index.NO);
>>    Field f2 = new Field("f", ts);
> How about adding this field in two parts, one part for indexing with the
> Now that got me thinking and I have exposed a rather large misconception in
> my understanding of the Lucene internals when consider fields of the same
> name.
> Your idea above looked like a good one.  However, I realise I am probably
> trying to use payloads wrongly.  I have the following information to store
> for a single Document
> contentId - 1 instance
> ownerId 1..n instances
> accessId 1..n instances
> One ownerId has a corresponding accessId for the contentId.
> My search criteria are ownerId:XXX + user criteria.  When there is a hit, I
> need the contentId and the corresponding accessId (for the owner) back.  So,
> I wanted to store the accessId as a payload to the ownerId.
> This is where I came unstuck.  For 'n=3' above, I used the
> SingleTokenTokenStream as you suggested with the accessId as the payload for
> ownerId.  However, at the Document level, I cannot get the payloads from the
> field so, in trying to understand fields with the same name, I discovered
> that there is a big difference between
> (a)
> Field f = new Field("ownerId", "OID1", Store.YES, Index.NO_NORMS);
> f = new Field("ownerId", "OID2", Store.YES, Index.NO_NORMS);
> f = new Field("ownerId", "OID3", Store.YES, Index.NO_NORMS);
> and (b)
> Field f = new Field("ownerId", "OID1 OID2 OID3", Store.YES,
> Index.NO_NORMS);
> as Document.getFields("ownerId") for (a) will be 3 and for (b) it will be
> 1.
> My question then is, if I do
> for (int i = 0; i < owners; i++)
> {
>    f = new Field("ownerId", oid[i], Store.YES, Index.NO_NORMS);
>    doc.add(f);
>    f = new Field("accessId", aid[i], Store.YES, Index.NO_NORMS);
>    doc.add(f);
> }
> then will the array elements for the corresponding Field arrays returned by
> Document.getFields("ownerId")
> Document.getFields("accessId")
> **guarantee** that the array element order is the same as the order they
> were added?

The API definitely doesn't promise this.
AFAIK implementation wise it happens to be like this but I can be wrong and
plus it might change in the future. It would make me nervous to rely on

The difficulty stems from that any specific information on the actual
matching token is digested at scoring and not reaching the hit collector in
effect. It somewhat reminds me the situation with highlighting, where
positions might have been considered for scoring, yet for a certain matching
doc of interest that is being displayed with highlighting, positions (and
offsets) need to be found again.

Anyhow, for your need I can think of two options:

Option 1:  just index the owenerID, do not store it, do not index or store
accessID (unless you wish to search by it, in this case just index it). In
addition store a dedicated mapping field that maps from ownerID to accessID.
E.g. with serialization of HashMap or something thinner. At runtime retrieve
this map from the document and it has all that information.

Option 2: as you describe above, just index the ownerID with accessID as
payload, and then for the hitting docid of interest use termPositions to get
the payload, i.e. something like:
    TermPositions tp = reader.termPositions(); Term("ownerID",oid));
    if (tp.isPayloadAvailable()) {
      byte [] accessIDBytes = tp.getPayload(...);

Each has its overhead but I think both should work...


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message