On 6/21/2020 1:04 PM, Scott Q. wrote:
The task at hand is to remove all documents indexed the old way, but
how can I do that ? user is of the form u...@domain.com and if I
search for u...@domain.com it matches all of 'user' or 'domain.com'
which has obvious unwanted consequences.
Therefore, how
I would add a new field with the new behavior. Then any document with
content in the new field would not need to be deleted. Find the deletable
content with:
*:* -new_field:*
I generally add a field that records when the document was indexed or
updated. That can be really handy.
wunder
Wal
Also note that I didn't apply the new schema yet because I don't
think it will let me change it mid-way like this without deleting all
data and starting anew...
On Sunday, 21/06/2020 at 15:12 Scott Q. wrote:
My apologies, it appears the configuration tags were escaped and
completely removed from
My apologies, it appears the configuration tags were escaped and
completely removed from my original e-mail.
I am including them via pastebin.com
https://pastebin.com/BSUqgEke
On Sunday, 21/06/2020 at 15:04 Scott Q. wrote:
Hello,
I use Solr with Dovecot and I made a mistake when I initial
Hello,
I use Solr with Dovecot and I made a mistake when I initially created
my schema for my instance. I created the username field with partial
matches enabled.
Aka, like this:
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Mar 31, 2020, at 6:00 AM, nileshwagh24 wrote:
>
> In need to score partial match in NAME field higher than exact match in
> INFOTEXT field.Actually I need to sort my SOLR result based on following
> five co
In need to score partial match in NAME field higher than exact match in
INFOTEXT field.Actually I need to sort my SOLR result based on following
five conditions
1.First, results with a whole word match on the first or second word in the
NAME go on top.
2.Then, results with a whole word match
Hi,
Here's our example of exact match fields:
https://github.com/NatLibFi/finna-solr/blob/master/vufind/biblio/conf/schema.xml#L48
textProper_l requires a partial match from the beginning. textProper_lr
requires a full match. I'm not sure if this works for you, but at least
we
Hi Omer,
If you mean exact match with same number of words (Emir's), you can also
add an identifier in the beginning and end of the some other field like
title_exact. This can be done in your indexing script or using Pattern
Replace. During query side, you can use this identifier. For ex
There are two different interpretations of “exact match” going on here, don’t
be confused!
Emir’s version is “the text has to match the _entire_ input. So a field with “a
b c d” will NOT match “a b” or “a b c” or “b c", but only “a b c d”.
David’s version is “The text has to contain
Hi Omer,
From performance perspective, it is the best if you index title as a single
token: KeywordTokenizer + LowerCaseFilter
If you need to query that field in some other way, you can index it differently
as some other field using copyField.
HTH,
Emir
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting
if the query is in quotes it will work. also, not sure if youve been
following, but get rid of:
StopFilterFactory and all stopwords, or just make your stop word file empty
if you need it to work in non quotes, add them to the query post
submission ?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:44 PM OTH wrote:
> H
Hello,
What would be the best way to get exact matches (if any) to a query?
E.g.: Let's the document text is: "united states of america".
Currently, any query containing one or more of the three words "united",
"states", or "america" will match with the above document. I would like a
way so th
; I am trying to use the API to get an exact match on clt_ref_no.
>
> At one point, I was using ""s to enclose the text such as:
>
> clt_ref_no: "OWL-2924-8", and I was getting 5 results. Which is accurate.
>
> Now when I use it, I only get one match.
>
> If
I am trying to use the API to get an exact match on clt_ref_no.
At one point, I was using ""s to enclose the text such as:
clt_ref_no: "OWL-2924-8", and I was getting 5 results. Which is accurate.
Now when I use it, I only get one match.
If I try to build the url in perl, a
dade <
rushikeshgarad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Small Correction in the mail above: attachmentType is managed-schema is:
> indexed="true" stored="true"/>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Rushikesh Garadade
> Date: Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:
Small Correction in the mail above: attachmentType is managed-schema is:
-- Forwarded message -
From: Rushikesh Garadade
Date: Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:43 PM
Subject: exact Match and Contains
To:
Hi,
I have field attachmentType in my collection whose schema is as follows
Hi,
I have field attachmentType in my collection whose schema is as follows:
when I search for attachmentType:application/pdf i.e. /select
*?q=attachmentType:application/pdf *
I get results
[image: image.png]
When I search for attachmentType:*application/pdf* i.e. /select?
*q=attachmentType:*ap
Message-
> From: Emir Arnautović [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match
>
> Hi Gopesh,
> No it is not - at least not in a way I was thinking. I should have b
I am using the above query.
Thanks,
Gopesh Sharma
-Original Message-
From: Emir Arnautović [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match
Hi Gopesh,
No it is not - at least not in a
auto...@sematext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:16 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match
>
> Hi Gopesh,
> You are probably grouping on field that is analysed so “Consulting” is group
> term. What you need to do is to have name fie
...@sematext.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:16 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match
Hi Gopesh,
You are probably grouping on field that is analysed so “Consulting” is group
term. What you need to do is to have name field that is not alalysed and group
on
ot happening on the exact
> match. For Example : I have 5 documents with name Construction Company,
> Construction Tower, Tower Company, Tower House and again Construction
> Company. If I search for Construction Company with grouping I am getting
> result as
>
>
> * Constru
Hello All,
I am grouping the results but the groups are not happening on the exact match.
For Example : I have 5 documents with name Construction Company, Construction
Tower, Tower Company, Tower House and again Construction Company. If I search
for Construction Company with grouping I am
/techproducts/select?
> debugQuery=on&indent=on&q=
> > manu:%22Bridge%20the%20gat~1%20between%20your%20skills%
> > 20and%20your%20goals%22&defType=complexphrase
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Max Bridgewater <
> > max.bridgewa...@gmail.com>
>
with multiple
tokens. Then construct a query which searches both field1 for an exact
match, and field2 using ComplexQueryParser (use the localparams syntax) to
combine them. Boost the field1 (exact match).
HTH
-Simon
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Max Bridgewater
wrote:
> Thanks Susheel. The c
idgewater <
> max.bridgewa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to do phrase exact match. For this, I use
> > KeywordTokenizerFactory. This basically does
n%20your%20skills%20and%20your%20goals%22&defType=complexphrase
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Max Bridgewater
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to do phrase exact match. For this, I use
> KeywordTokenizerFactory. This basically does what I want to do. My field
>
Hi,
I am trying to do phrase exact match. For this, I use
KeywordTokenizerFactory. This basically does what I want to do. My field
type is defined as follows:
In addition to this, I want to tolerate typos of two or three
Hello Gintas,
>From the first letter I've got that you use colon to separate fieldname and
text.
But here it's =, which is never advised in lucence syntax.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Gintautas Sulskus <
gintautas.suls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for your replies.
> Sorry, forgo
Hi,
Thank you for your replies.
Sorry, forgot to specify, I am using Solr 4.10.3 (from Cloudera CDH 5.9.0).
When I search for name:Guardian I can see both "Guardian EU-referendum"
and "Guardian US" in the result set.
The debugQuery results for both queries are identical
http://pastebin.com/xr96E
Hello,
I've tested on an old solr 4.3 instance and the schema and the field
definition are fine. I've also checked that only the
query nameExact:"Guardian EU-referendum" gives the result, the other one
you have commented (nameExact:"Guardian US") gives 0 hits. Maybe, you
forgot to re-index after s
You can try to check debugQuery to understand how this query is parsed:
double quotes hardly compatible with KeywordTokenizer. Also you can check
which terms are indexed in SchemaBrowser. Also, there is Analysis page at
Solr Admin.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Gintautas Sulskus <
gintautas.sul
Hi All,
I am trying to figure out why Solr returns an empty result when searching
for the following query:
nameExact:"Guardian EU-referendum"
The field definition:
The type definition:
The analysis, as expected, matches the query parameter against the stored
value. Please take
Hi,
how about q=code_text:bolt*&fq=code_text:bolt
Ahmet
On Thursday, March 2, 2017 4:41 PM, Сергей Твердохлеб
wrote:
Hi,
is there way to separate exact match from wildcard match in solr response?
e.g. there are two documents: {code_text:bolt} and {code_text:bolter}. When
I search
Again, depending on your case, you can use functions in fl to return
additional indicator if doc is exact match or not:
q=code_text:bolt OR whatever&fl=*,isExact:tf('code_text_exact', 'bolt')
It will return isExact field with values >0 for any doc that has term
>
>> code_text_exact:bolt^1 OR code_text:bolt
>>
>> If you want to use wildcards, you can use similar approach:
>>
>> code_text:bolt^1 OR code_text:bolt*
>>
>> HTH,
>> Emir
>>
>>
>> On 02.03.2017 14:41, Сергей Твердохлеб
y to get different score for different matches:
>
> code_text_exact:bolt^1 OR code_text:bolt
>
> If you want to use wildcards, you can use similar approach:
>
> code_text:bolt^1 OR code_text:bolt*
>
> HTH,
> Emir
>
>
> On 02.03.2017 14:41, Сергей Твердохлеб wrote:
>
&
wrote:
Hi,
is there way to separate exact match from wildcard match in solr response?
e.g. there are two documents: {code_text:bolt} and {code_text:bolter}. When
I search for "bolt" I want to get both results, but somehow grouped, so I
can determine either it was found wit
Hi,
is there way to separate exact match from wildcard match in solr response?
e.g. there are two documents: {code_text:bolt} and {code_text:bolter}. When
I search for "bolt" I want to get both results, but somehow grouped, so I
can determine either it was found with exact or non-e
In addition to what was proposed
We use the technic described here
https://github.com/cominvent/exactmatch
and it works quite well.
Best regards
Elisabeth
2016-06-15 16:32 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Benedetti :
> In addition to what Erick correctly proposed,
> are you storing norms for your field o
In addition to what Erick correctly proposed,
are you storing norms for your field of interest ( to boost documents with
shorter field values )?
If you are, I find suspicious "Sony Ear Phones" to win over "Ear Phones"
for your "Ear Phones" query.
What are the other factors currently involved in you
If these are the complete field, i.e. your document
contains exactly "ear phones" and not "ear phones
are great" use a copyField to put it into an "exact_match"
field that uses a much simpler analysis chain based
on KeywordTokenizer (plus, perhaps things like
lowercaseFilter, maybe strip punctuatio
Hi,
I have documents with a field (data type definition for that field is
below) values as ear phones, sony ear phones, philips ear phones. when i
query for earphones sony ear phones is the top result where as i want ear
phones as top result. please suggest how to boost exact matches. PS: I have
e
What query are you using? From what you've shown, the exact match
should work. Perhaps use a phrase query?
And while the analyzer is very cool, it has its limitations,
particularly it doesn't show the interactions with the _parser_. So
add &debug-query to the URL and look at the par
general but i have one use case is not working and I don't
know how to solve it.
when I try to make an exact match like below.
q=docContent:"dq/ex report"
It can't find the match because the worddelimiter is separating the
positions on the index but not in the query as I don'
dvd default_searchfield:bracket
>>
>> And the &debug=query trick will show you exactly how things are actually
>> searched, it's invaluable.
>>
>> Best,
>> Erick
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Mugeesh Husain
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
&g
f you are interested phrase query, you should use String field instead of
text field in schema like as
this will solved you problem.
if you are missing anything else let share
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/implement-exact-match-f
gt;> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>
>>> 29. jan. 2016 kl. 11.14 skrev Alessandro Benedetti <
>> abenede...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> Jan sorry If i insist, but I really don't see the benefit.
>
gt; If you use the edismax and a copy field not tokenised, you can apply the
> > boost you want to the exact match, and the query will simply be q=foo.
> > And you obtain exactly what you do without the markers.
> >
> > But please, explain me how your solution add some benefi
Hi Derek,
What if it does not match other fields but just exact match. From
original question I assume it should return such results. It seems to me
that you are AND-ing your fields and that is the reason why your query
is not returning anything. Can you try just exact match field and see if
the same search term to all the 4 search fieldsand 1
> of the search field must be an exact match.
>
> You mentioned "In particular, the pf parameter will automatically apply the
> search terms _as a phrase_ against the field specified, relieving you of
> having to enclose th
st, but I really don't see the benefit.
> If you use the edismax and a copy field not tokenised, you can apply the
> boost you want to the exact match, and the query will simply be q=foo.
> And you obtain exactly what you do without the markers.
>
> But please, explain me how y
Jan sorry If i insist, but I really don't see the benefit.
If you use the edismax and a copy field not tokenised, you can apply the
boost you want to the exact match, and the query will simply be q=foo.
And you obtain exactly what you do without the markers.
But please, explain me how
Hi Erick and all
Yes I am trying to apply the same search term to all the 4 search
fieldsand 1 of the search field must be an exact match.
You mentioned "In particular, the pf parameter will automatically apply
the search terms _as a phrase_ against the field specified, relieving
y
solved you problem.
if you are missing anything else let share
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/implement-exact-match-for-one-of-the-search-fields-only-tp4253786p4253827.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
rtial matches". What does "while" mean - it has to
match in other fields as well or result should be scored better if it
does but not mandatory to match?
For exact match you can use string type instead of text.
For querying multiple fields you can take a look at (e)dismax quer
> Cheers
>
> On 28 January 2016 at 15:22, Jan Høydahl wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Please look at my github repo with a template for a field type allowing
>> exact match. Typical use is with disMax query parser and the “pf” param.
>> See https://github.com
u should use String field instead
> of
> > text field in schema like as
> >
> >
> > this will solved you problem.
> >
> > if you are missing anything else let share
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/implement-exact-match-for-one-of-the-search-fields-only-tp4253786p4253827.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
ng else let share
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/implement-exact-match-for-one-of-the-search-fields-only-tp4253786p4253827.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
allowing
> exact match. Typical use is with disMax query parser and the “pf” param.
> See https://github.com/cominvent/exactmatch
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
> > 28. jan. 2016 kl. 10.52 skrev Derek Poh :
> >
>
Hi
Please look at my github repo with a template for a field type allowing exact
match. Typical use is with disMax query parser and the “pf” param.
See https://github.com/cominvent/exactmatch
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 28. jan. 2016 kl. 10
Hi,
> if you are interested phrase query, you should use String field instead of
> text field in schema like as
>
>
> this will solved you problem.
>
> if you are missing anything else let share
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.4720
Hi,
if you are interested phrase query, you should use String field instead of
text field in schema like as
this will solved you problem.
if you are missing anything else let share
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/implement-exact-match-for-one-of-the
etter if it does but
not mandatory to match?
For exact match you can use string type instead of text.
For querying multiple fields you can take a look at (e)dismax query parser.
Regards,
Emir
--
Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management
Solr & Elasticsearch Suppo
- P_ShortDescription
- P_CatConcatKeyword
- spp_keyword_exact
For the spp_keyword_exact field, I want to apply an exact match to it.
I have a document with the following information. If I search for 'dvd',
this document should not match. However if I search for 'dvd bracket&#
6.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4213417.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
emain :
1) carefully take care of your analysis
2) carefully take care of the schema ( field attributes)
3) carefully take care of the handler config
Cheers
>
> The corresponding results also given in the below link.Now am getting exact
> match first.
>
> http://pastebin.com/rAYrFiB8
ding results also given in the below link.Now am getting exact
match first.
http://pastebin.com/rAYrFiB8
Now the problem is Look at the 8th result
"product_name":"Dell Inspiron 15R 15.6-inch Laptop without Laptop Bag by
Dell", its not a relevant result
can you check How
end
> positionLength
> type
> keyword
> position
>
> laptop
> [6c 61 70 74 6f 70]
> 0
> 6
> 1
> word
> false
> 1
>
> bag
> [62 61 67]
> 7
> 10
> 1
> word
> false
> 2
> EMSF
>
> text
> raw_bytes
> start
> end
> positi
e.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211845.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
without Laptop Bag by Dell
> 8.Laptop - BAG
> 9.Laptop -BAG
> 10.Laptop-BAG
>
> I need to get Last three results first, rest of the results can be any
> order
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Re
ptop-BAG
I need to get Last three results first, rest of the results can be any order
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211826.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
about synonyms . When I checked in the FAQ page of Solr wiki, it is found
>> that if we need to get exact match results first, use a copy field with
>> different configuration. That's why I followed this way.
>>
>
> Can you show me this link, as I still find difficult to
gt; that if we need to get exact match results first, use a copy field with
> different configuration. That's why I followed this way.
>
Can you show me this link, as I still find difficult to understand why you
are getting this not by default.
Have you tried the Analysis tool to v
Hi chillra,
I have changed the index and query filed configuration to
But still my problem not solved , it won't resolve my problem.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211788.html
Sent from the
Andy -
-Original Message-
From: JACK [mailto:mfal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 12:54 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr Exact match boost Reduce the results
As explained above, actually I have around 10 lack data not 5 row. It's not
about synonym
As explained above, actually I have around 10 lack data not 5 row. It's not
about synonyms . When I checked in the FAQ page of Solr wiki, it is found
that if we need to get exact match results first, use a copy field with
different configuration. That's why I followed this way.
--
I did a simple test using out of the Box Edismax ( not even configuring
specific params or the phrase field).
As expected the exact match comes first.
This is because of the norms and the natural way the Edismax boost exact
matches.
Are you sure you are using a proper query parser ?
I did nothing
The quoted search words will be different and it will be any word or more
than one word. In the query it's just example
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211410.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing
words. When I do this my results is too less compared to search without
quotes. But I need the same results without quotes along with exact matches
should come first
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211409
ll laptop without bag
> dell inspiron laptop with bag
> if i query for "dell laptop", the result should be like this
> dell laptop
> dell laptop with bag
> dell laptop without bag
> dell inspiron laptop with bag
> Exact match should come first, rest of the things will b
t bag
dell inspiron laptop with bag
Exact match should come first, rest of the things will be in the any order,
but should get the same number of results
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Exact-match-boost-Reduce-the-results-tp4211352p4211377.html
Sent fro
Hi jack, do you mean exact match over the synonyms ?
In that case, with your Analyzer you are not going to be able to see that.
You apply index analysis synonym expansion.
So for your Index there is no difference between the synonyms, there is no
"exact match" .
In this case I would s
I have two fields, one is copy field. I have to get Exact match results first
along with entire result of fuzzy search.
Its filed definition is given below
We have item_name indexed as text edge_ngram which returns like results...
Please suggest what will be the best approach (like "string" index (in
addition to "...edge_ngram"... or using copyField...) to search ALSO for
exact matches?
e.g. url should return item_name as "abc" entries only... I tri
10:49 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Exact match on string field with special characters
I may have provided too much background story for my question. What I am trying
to do at the core here, is an exact match on a single field. I do this
programmatically by reading the field v
Shoot I just noticed the error in my original post which would certainly
cause confusion.
Instead of
query.addFacetField(fq);
I meant to write
query.setParam("fq", fg);
Sorry.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-string-field-wi
I may have provided too much background story for my question. What I am
trying to do at the core here, is an exact match on a single field. I do
this programmatically by reading the field value from the facet query and
setting it equal to the field name for a subsequent search.
if this is a
string fields for faceting - to try to get an exact match. However, it
seems like to run a facet query I have to surround the value with double
quotes. That poses issues when the field value is
green "bath" towels
-or-
red \cars
Those two special characters must be transformed somehow o
ry, you can use
org.apache.solr.client.solrj.util.ClientUtils.escapeQueryChars().
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: tedsolr [mailto:tsm...@sciquest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 5:33 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Exact match on string field with special characters
I am trying to do SQL like aggregation (GROU
I am trying to do SQL like aggregation (GROUP BY) with solr faceting. So I
use string fields for faceting - to try to get an exact match. However, it
seems like to run a facet query I have to surround the value with double
quotes. That poses issues when the field value is
green "bath" t
the phrase found
query: srcphrase:"in case if" the phrase found
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Tricky-exact-match-unwanted-search-results-tp4158652p4158894.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I keep asking people this eternal question: What training or doc are you
reading that is using this term "exact match"? Clearly the term is being
used by a lot of people in a lot of ambiguous ways, when "exact" should
be... "exact".
I think we need to start usi
y for analyzer
type="index", removed all the documents and then re-added them.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Tricky-exact-match-unwanted-search-results-tp4158652p4158748.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
*Erick*, thank you for help!
For exact match I still want:
to use stemming (e.g. for "sleep" I want the word forms "slept", "sleeping",
"sleeps" also to be used in searching)
to disregard case sensitivity
to disregard prepositions, conjunctions and other
The easiest way to make your examples work would
be to use a copyField to an "exact match" field that
uses the KeywordTokenizer (and perhaps a lowercase filter).
Then your exact match would be satisfied by a simple
wildcard search for cat*.
You'll have to be a little careful to es
Hi guys, could you help me with implementing exact match search in Solr.
Say I have the following Solr documents: And my search query is:
By default Solr for the given documents and the search query "cat" will give
all the partially matched documents ("cat", "pussy cat&q
Maybe use dismax for this? Something like q={!dismax qf=field_name
mm=90%}query_string, or more verbosely and separately,
q=query_string&defType=dismax&mm=90%
Erik
On Aug 19, 2014, at 2:43 AM, William Bell wrote:
> If I have a long string, how do I match on 90% of the terms to see
If I have a long string, how do I match on 90% of the terms to see if there
is a duplicate?
If I add the field and index it, what is the best way to return 90%?
# terms match
# of terms in the field?
--
Bill Bell
billnb...@gmail.com
cell 720-256-8076
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
