Terry Steichen 2003-02-28, 18:43
Terry Steichen 2003-02-10, 19:28
Terry Steichen 2003-02-08, 23:36
Doug Cutting 2003-02-10, 18:57
-Re: Computing Relevancy Differently
Terry Steichen 2003-01-27, 02:12
I admit to a bit of frustration.
With the past several messages, I simply asked (or, more accurately, tried
to ask) how to alter the way that Lucene ranks relevancy, and I asked
whether the selective boost mechanism might do the trick. I admitted that I
don't know (nor care to know) the theory behind how relevancy is computed.
So far I've been told to review the archives (which I've done), and then
this (which I don't understand - see my embedded [==>]comments below).
What's next? Seems that I'm getting a message: "Figure it out on your own,
you dummy." Maybe I've gotten on the wrong list by mistake?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Galambos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Computing Relevancy Differently
> 1) Lucene uses the Vector model, if you want to use different model
==>I have no idea of what that means, nor what the alternative to the
"Vector model" might be.
>you must understand what you are doing
==>which I don't, as I've already stated several times.
>and you must change similarity calculations.
==>which means what? Is that part of Lucene?
>AFAIK you would set the normalization factor to a constant value (1.0 or
==>Does this mean not to use boost?
> 2) you are trying to search for DATA, not INFORMATION. It is a big
> difference. For your task, you could rather use simpler engine that is
> based on RDBMS and B+.
==>I didn't know I was excluding one for the other. Do I interpret all this
to mean Lucene can't be adjusted to do what I was asking? That it's too
Leo Galambos 2003-01-27, 19:15
Terry Steichen 2003-01-26, 16:27
Doug Cutting 2003-02-07, 19:37
Leo Galambos 2003-01-26, 16:56
Terry Steichen 2003-01-25, 01:49
Otis Gospodnetic 2003-01-25, 07:09