I'm wondering if storing just the offset as a payload would be cheaper from
storage perspective than enabling termOffsets, termVectors and
termPositions? Maybe we could get the offset info to return with results
from there then?
Thanks,
Nalini
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nalini K
t; termVectors=true
> termPositions=true
> termOffsets=true
>
> And use the fast vector highlighter.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message- From: Nalini Kartha Sent: Friday, September 20,
> 2013 7:34 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Getting term
> offsets f
Hi,
We're looking at implementing highlighting for some fields which may be too
large to store in the index.
As an alternative to using the Solr Highlighter (which needs fields to be
stored), I was wondering if a) the offsets of terms are stored BY DEFAULT
in the index (even if we're not using th
correction queries?
Thanks,
Nalini
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Nalini Kartha wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> We're using Solr but reason I wanted to issue the queries from
> DirectSpellChecker was so that we don't end up returning a bunch of
> corrections from suggestSimil
; optimize this, you can use the same approach as in SOLR-3240, implementing
> a Collector that only looks for 1 document then quits.
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nalini Kartha [mailto:n
Hi James,
Yup, that was what I tried to do initially but it seems like calling
through to those Solr methods from DirectSpellChecker was not a good idea -
am I wrong? And like you mentioned, this seemed like it wasn't low-level
enough.
Eric: Unfortunately the collate functionality does not work f
er, like fq={!myparser
> param1='some value'}possible+expression+if+needed, so maybe that helps?
>
> Tell us more about what you're doing specifically, and maybe we can guide
> you to a more elegant way to plug in any custom logic you want.
>
> Erik
>
&g
large OR query with all of the words?
>
>
> On 12/26/2012 03:10 PM, Nalini Kartha wrote:
>
>> Hi Otis,
>>
>> Sorry, let me be more specific.
>>
>> The end goal is for the DirectSpellChecker to make sure that the
>> corrections it is returning will retu
What is your end goal, what are you trying to achieve?
>
> Otis
> Solr & ElasticSearch Support
> http://sematext.com/
> On Dec 26, 2012 11:22 AM, "Nalini Kartha" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how to convert the fq params tha
ed" irrelevant term) match anything. On the other
> hand, it won't assume the query is "Correctly
> Spelled" just because you got some hits from it (because mm=0 will just
> cause the misspelled terms to be thrown out).
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
&g
ns required)
>
> spellcheck.maxCollations=10 (+/- depending on performance vs # suggestions
> required)
>
> spellcheck.collate=true
>
> spellcheck.collateExtendedResults=true
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
>
> ---
are no collations. The individual words would be helpful,
> but you're not sure because they might all apply to items that do not match
> "fq=item:in_stock".
>
> Is this the problem?
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
of
> discussions usually happen).
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nalini Kartha [mailto:nalinikar...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:06 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
fault INTERNAL_LEVENSHTEIN_DISTANCE metric)? And do
you think this would be of general use i.e. could it be contributed back to
Solr?
Thanks,
Nalini
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Nalini Kartha wrote:
> Ah I see what you mean. Will probably try to change the response to look
> like the internal shard one then.
Request=false" to
> #toNamedList so that the end user gets a "normal" response back, omitting
> terms for which there are no suggestions.
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
>
> -Original Message-
> Fr
mean time, If you need to get the document frequency of the query
> terms, see http://wiki.apache.org/solr/TermsComponent , which maybe would
> provide you a viable workaround.
>
> James Dyer
> E-Commerce Systems
> Ingram Content Group
> (615) 213-4311
>
>
> -Original Me
Hi,
In most of the examples I have seen for configuring the
DirectSolrSpellChecker the minPrefix attribute is set to 1 (and this is the
default value as well).
Is there any specific reason for this - would performance take a hit if it
was set to 0? We'd like to support returning corrections which
question - all the examples of spellcheck
dictionaries I've seen in sample solrconfig.xmls have minPrefix set to 1.
Is this for performance reasons? And with this setting, we wouldn't get
"run" as a correction for "eon" right?
Thanks,
Nalini
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at
problems,
> then a "ConjunctionSolrSpellChecker" combines the results from the main
> spellchecker and the wordbreak spellcheker. I could see a next step beyond
> this being to support per-field dictionaries, checking them separately,
> then combining the results.
Hi,
We are trying to use the DirectSolrSpellChecker to get corrections for
mis-spelled query terms directly from fields in the Solr index.
However, we need to use multiple fields for spellchecking a query. It looks
looks like you can only use one spellchecker for a request and so the
workaround f
20 matches
Mail list logo
