I am trying to search in Google Scholar all results that match the following:
allintitle: fung* "propylene glycol"
This returns zero results, whereas for example allintitle: fungicidal "propylene glycol" already returns two results.
Why is my wildcard failing? I have tried also "fung*", "~fung*", "fung%" etc.
Related
I am working on the below query and trying to implement an ArangoDB wildcard search. The criteria is very simple, I'd like to match records similar to the name or a number field and limit the records to 25. The query works but is very slow, taking upwards of 30seconds. The goal is to optimize this query and get it as close to sub second as possible. I'd like the query to function similar to how a MySQL LIKE would work, matching using the % wildcard on both sides.
https://www.arangodb.com/docs/stable/release-notes-new-features37.html#wildcard-search
Note, one thing I noticed is that in the release note examples, rather than using FILTER, they are using SEARCH.
Additional info:
name is alphanumeric
number is going to by an 8 digit number
LET str = CONCAT("%", 'test', '%")
LET search = (
FOR doc IN name_search
FILTER ANALYZER(doc.name LIKE str, "text_en") OR
FILTER ANALYZER(doc.number LIKE str, "text_en")
LIMIT 25
RETURN doc
)
RETURN SEARCH
FILTER doesn't utilize indices. To speedup your wildcard queries you have to create an ArangoSearch view over a collection and use SEARCH keyword.
Feel free to check the following interactive tutorial (see "LIKE Support" section):
https://www.arangodb.com/learn/search/arangosearch-tutorial-3-7/
I want to find all records containing the pattern "170629-2" in Azure Search explorer, did try with
query string : customOfferId eq "170629-2*"
which only give one result back, which is the exactly match of "170629-2", but i do not get the records which have the patterns of "170629-20", "170629-21" or "170629-201".
Two things.
1-You can't use standard analyzer as it will break your "words" in two parts:
e.g. 170629-20 will be breaked as 170629 and another entry as 20.
2-You can use regex and specify the pattern you want:
170629-2+.*
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/search/query-lucene-syntax#bkmk_regex
PS: use &queryType=full to allow regex
I'm performing an XPATH search in (Day CQ) CRX, and I'm trying to limit the results returned by the query.
After reading every possible forum on the internet, I came to understanding that
(//my-component)[position() <= 5]
should return the first 5 elements that match the query, as noted here.
I get, Unsupported expression with position(). Only = is supported.
I also try last() for example, but I get all the results back.
Any help on how to limit the number of results would be much appreciated.
Thanks
I am newest in Lucene.
I'm using Lucene.NET version 2.9.4.
What is the difference between these queries?
the first is:
title:hello AND tags:word
the second is:
+title:hello +tags:word
I testing a software, and I note that the first returns 3 records, and the second returns many records.
I observe that the first returns records where title and tags fields are fuel, but the second returns records where title and tags can be empty.
Is it the difference?
There is no difference between the two. clause1 AND clause2 is effectively shorthand for +clause1 +clause2
Similarly: clause1 clause2 = clause1 OR clause2
Note, there is really no equivalent for +clause1 clause2 using the boolean operators.
Are you sending the query over the Internet, if you are and not urlencoding the request correctly it could be misinterting the '+' as an encoded space and therefore lucene just runs the second query as if the +'s not there which would just OR the two parts and give the results you get.
title:hello tags:word
test:1 AND NOT bool:true
returns 5 documents
but
test:1 AND (NOT bool:true)
returns 0 documents
Why?
Please Explain me the value of parentheses in lucene query formation
When you place (NOT bool:true) in parentheses it becomes a subquery, which is executed independent of the query test:1. NOT clauses in Lucene ONLY remove elements from the result set, they don't find anything. In SQL, for instance, you implicitly start with every value available, and filter elements which don't match clauses out. In Lucene, you start with nothing, and find results based on the clauses. The query NOT bool:true tells it what not to match, but doesn't give Lucene anything to find and return. Any query of the form:
(any query finding results) AND (NOT something)
Will find zero results, because, on it's own, NOT something finds nothing, and (something) AND (nothing) returns nothing. You can perform a search like that, by getting all values first, before the lonely NOT clause, like:
test:1 AND (*:* AND NOT bool:true)
However, that will perform very poorly, and your first example:
test:1 AND NOT bool:true
Is definitely the correct one.