lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Sokolov <>
Subject Re: surround parser match-all query
Date Mon, 07 May 2012 00:22:27 GMT
Hmm - I looked at Spans more carefully, and it appears as if your idea 
about a "fake" Query (some kind of SpanAllQuery would be called for) 
would work well, and would probably be much simpler to implement.  It 
wouldn't preclude the kind of optimization I was talking about either, 
but I don't know if it would be worth the trouble.

It turns out in my very specific case I have a term that appears in 
every document in a particular field, so I am just using a search for 
that at the moment.


On 5/6/2012 8:04 PM, Mike Sokolov wrote:
> I think what I have in mind would be purely an artifact of the parser; 
> a term that would always be optimized away, either vanishing or 
> gobbling up the whole query.  So if you had  n(A,*), you would just 
> get "A".  If you had and(A, not(*)) (is that the surround syntax for 
> not?) you would get nothing, if you had * you would get all the 
> documents.  Maybe this could be done without having to actually 
> generate a query internally, but could happen during parsing.  It's 
> kind of a weird case, but I am trying to translate from one query 
> language to another, and it would be convenient to have this as an 
> option.
> -Mike
> On 5/6/2012 7:28 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>> Hi Mike: wheres for the normal queryparser this Query doesn't consult
>> the positions file and is trivial, how would such a query be
>> implemented for the surround parser? As a single span that matches all
>> positions for the whole document? Maybe it could be a "fake span" for
>> each document of 0 ... Integer.MAX_VALUE?
>> I think it would be nice to have as long as its not going to be too
>> inefficient...
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mike Sokolov<>  
>> wrote:
>>> does anybody know how to express a MatchAllDocsQuery in surround query
>>> parser language?  I've tried
>>> *
>>> and()
>>> but those don't parse.  I looked at the grammar and I don't think 
>>> there is a
>>> way.  Please let us all know if you know otherwise!
>>> Thanks
>>> -Mike Sokolov
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message