[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lucene-dev
Subject:    RE: Memory Usage?
From:       Halácsy_Péter <halacsy.peter () axelero ! com>
Date:       2001-11-13 9:27:16
[Download RAW message or body]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Goetz [mailto:brian@quiotix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:58 AM
> To: Lucene Users List
> Cc: lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Memory Usage?
> 
> 
> > Since this is changing behavior that people are depending 
> on, what about 
> > creating a new QueryParser called QueryParserSafe that 
> excludes option.
> > I don't like the idea of removing functionality with no backward 
> > compatibility.
> 
> I knew this was coming.  
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to laugh just a little bit.  The new query
> parser has only existed for less than two months -- and people have
> built empires based on it?  I'm perfectly willing to debate whether
> its a good idea or not to remove the wildcard match syntax from the
> query parser, but I think the "backward compatibility" argument is one
> of the less compelling arguments against doing so.  Bear in mind that
> no one is suggesting removing the functionality from the core -- just
> restricting its use to programmatically generated queries.  A strong
> argument can be made for not exposing the "don't try this at home"
> behavior through an interface that is bound to be used by naive
> end-users.
> 

How about this:
"You must have at least four non-wildcard characters in a word before
you introduce a wildcard."  (source:
http://www.northernlight.com/docs/search_help_optimize.html)

I think the best approach would be to have a parameter (of query
parser?, of indexsearcher?) to set the minimal non wild-char characters
before any wildchar.

peter



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]