Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 23516 invoked from network); 10 May 2009 21:38:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 May 2009 21:38:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 40712 invoked by uid 500); 10 May 2009 21:38:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 40620 invoked by uid 500); 10 May 2009 21:38:14 -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 40610 invoked by uid 99); 10 May 2009 21:38:14 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 May 2009 21:38:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of moshec@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.206 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.206] (HELO mail-fx0-f206.google.com) (209.85.220.206) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 May 2009 21:38:05 +0000 Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so2870019fxm.5 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=Bz4B4EsYeC1TsQcgVtbnO5Cp2Nd9V1mw2MC6tXD3BMo=; b=hJjNqH4kFGGyGSgm1+u53DVz5dXpeeQIcAdJA4VTtoMnbUAC8X5OiHSgpOlgNjKst0 RQGS6RkOPQYA6vMlpvu/YimL1aHjR5S9lR6lTHlhPVHVaBDDh8eLCPXkIcPgXMBJnZVG XcTTGOFtX6okl2wkGrI3wyMUWRYdR/Vb6vcFk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=MgBOt4wYGilsz2dN3nPJTN+QDx9FpHIcEWs4cAIm66IhzPnSqdMpcCRZ5IP7MV9kd3 aGkiGsnMWw4Kq0Ma4fXauk07u++FN3Vjwhoto964Hp/33dj4JKPOypJaDaH6XtD6pY6t SB31qEbBhywQBvVQ2d46xAYSSy1zrxV2Rq9oE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.165.18 with SMTP id s18mr3578112muo.124.1241991465103; Sun, 10 May 2009 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Moshe Cohen Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:37:25 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Deleted files considered for scoring To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016369fa2f6177204046995ac78 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0016369fa2f6177204046995ac78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I am using Lucene 2.4.1 via Pylucene and have encountered the following behavior: When there are deleted documents in the index the search scores are identical to those that exist had those documents not been deleted. If I optimize the index and the deleted documents are actually removed, the the scoring is the same as if those documents were never indexed at all. Is this a bug or am I missing something? Optimization is not a feasible option for my use where there are as many indexing actions as searching, and they are mixed. --0016369fa2f6177204046995ac78--