Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> Ohhh, my. Well, in that case I'm afraid I'm out of ideas. Can you
> raise a JIRA on the crash? Please include the field definition
> and an example of the query you're sending. This should
> be fixed...
>
How can I do this ?
Sorry I'm just starting in using Solr and re
Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> No, WDF only works on tokens from the tokenizer. It would
> not concatenate two separate tokens together, just tokens generated
> because of, say, case changes, punctuation, etc in the single token
> that made it through, say, WhitespaceTokenizerFactory.
>
> The analysi
Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> If you change your WordDelimiterFilterFactory (WDF) setting
> in the section of your field definition and set
> catenatewords="1", do you get the specific behavior you're
> asking for when you search for "crosslin* compiler"~50? And
> is this acceptable?
>
I'm afraid
iorixxx wrote:
>
> Hi Jean,
> Since you use WDF, your best bet can be to modify your query :
>
> "cross link* compiler"~50
>
> "crosslink* compiler"~50
>
Thanks but
"crosslink* compiler"~50 returns nothing (seems correct to me however)
"cross link* compiler"~50 does not return exactly what
iorixxx wrote:
>
> Can you paste your field type definition?
>
Here it is:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Jean-Michel
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/ComplexPhraseQueryParser-and-wildcards-tp2742244p2754034.html
Chandan Tamrakar-2 wrote:
>
> did you get any exceptions ?
> usually wild card term you mentioned would be expanded before being
> actually
> searched .
>
No exception. Just no results returned.
JMR
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.47
inked' ...
("cross-linker compiler"~50 OR "cross-linking compiler"~50) is working OK
but ("cross-link* compiler"~50) is not working (returns nothing)
Is there another syntax allowing to do sucj query ?
Thanks
JMR
--
View this message in context:
htt
iorixxx wrote:
>
>
> I added Terje Eggestad's fix[1], can you test it give us feedback?
>
>
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. The fix was working well but we discovered another
query crashing the parser:
a63b27/00:IC
"org.apache.lucene.search.PhraseQuery" found in phrase query string
"a63b27/00"
at
iorixxx wrote:
>
>
> I added this change to SOLR-1604, can you test it give us feedback?
>
>
Hi,
Sorry for the delay.
We have tested the change and it is OK for this.
However, we have found that this query is crashing when using
CoomplexPhraseQuery:
"sulfur-reducing bacteria"
It is due to
iorixxx wrote:
>
>> > class="org.apache.solr.search.ComplexPhraseQParserPlugin">
>> > name="inOrder">false
>>
>>
>
> I added this change to SOLR-1604, can you test it give us feedback?
>
>
May thanks. I'll test this quite soon and let you know.
J-Michel
--
View this message in conte
iorixxx wrote:
>
> ComplexPhraseQuery is ordered phrase query where default Lucene's
> PhraseQuery is unordered. With ComplexPhrase order or terms are important.
>
Thanks for your answer.
With this request: (text:("protein digest"~50)) || (text:("digest
protein"~50))
I get my 6 documents.
In
Hi,
We have installed ComplexPhraseQuery and since that we can see strange
behaviour in proximity search.
We have the 2 following queries:
(text:("protein digest"~50))
(text:("digest protein"~50))
Without ComplexPhraseQuery, both queries are returning 6 documents matching.
With ComplexPhraseQue
12 matches
Mail list logo
