lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Terry Steichen" <>
Subject Re: Computing Relevancy Differently
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:12:45 GMT
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" <>
To: "Lucene Users List" <>
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

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

View raw message