: I have a use case where I would like to search across two fields but I do not
: want to weight a document that has a match in both fields higher than a
: document that has a match in only 1 field.
use dismax, set the "tie" param to "0.0" (so it's a true "max" with no
score boost for matching i
It will be nice if we can have dissum in addition to dismax. ;-)
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM, lee carroll
wrote:
> see
>
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html
>
>
>
> On 27 September 2011 16:04, Mark wrote:
> > I thought that a similarity class
see
http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html
On 27 September 2011 16:04, Mark wrote:
> I thought that a similarity class will only affect the scoring of a single
> field.. not across multiple fields? Can anyone else chime in with some
> input? Thanks.
>
I thought that a similarity class will only affect the scoring of a
single field.. not across multiple fields? Can anyone else chime in with
some input? Thanks.
On 9/26/11 9:02 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Hi Mark,
Eh, I don't have Lucene/Solr source code handy, but I *think* for that you'd
n
Hi Mark,
Eh, I don't have Lucene/Solr source code handy, but I *think* for that you'd
need to write custom Lucene similarity.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>From: Mark
On Thursday 02 August 2007 20:18, Walter Underwood wrote:
> I agree about the fussiness and mystery of good values for minimum
> match, but the requestor wanted 100% all the time. That is easy.
But I want it only by default, with an easy way to go back to OR for parts
of the query, e.g. doing a
I agree about the fussiness and mystery of good values for minimum match,
but the requestor wanted 100% all the time. That is easy.
I think spell suggestions are harder than search, so "assume great spell
suggestions" is not a good fix for a bad default (all terms).
wunder
On 8/2/07 11:13 AM, "
On Thursday 02 August 2007 18:46, Walter Underwood wrote:
> Use the minimum match spec for a flexible version of all-terms
> matching.
I think this is too difficult and unpredictable. I also don't know how I
should justify a setting like "75%", just because it maybe works fine for
some examples
Use the minimum match spec for a flexible version of all-terms
matching.
Before implementing all-terms matching, start logging the number of
searches that result in no matches. All-terms can cause big problems.
One wrong or misspelled word means no matches, and searchers don't
know how to fix the
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 09:47, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> for the record, using the Lucene boolean options "+" and "-" do work in
> the "q" expression for the dismax handler ... for that matter, the
> boolean keywords AND, OR, and NOT work as well
The only case that doesn't seem to work (and th
ROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:48 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: searching multiple fields
>
>
> : > StandardRequestHandler), but I also want to be able to use Lucene's
> : > boolean syntax (AND/OR/NOT). This doesn't s
is, it is exactly the same as:
+a:valueAlpha +a:valueBeta +a:valueGamma
I have to use OR between the values.
Is this supposed to be true?
Thanks,
Lance
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:48 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apa
This caused me a certain amount of trouble, because the parser
errors with ill-formed queries. Try these:
foo -
TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT
wunder
On 8/1/07 12:47 AM, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > StandardRequestHandler), but I also want to be able to use Lucene's
> : > b
: > StandardRequestHandler), but I also want to be able to use Lucene's
: > boolean syntax (AND/OR/NOT). This doesn't seem to be supported by
: > DisMaxRequestHandler. I will need to copy or extend
for the record, using the Lucene boolean options "+" and "-" do work in
the "q" expression for the
Hello,I'm not sure if it's the smartest solution, but if your request go
throught a programming layer, you could rewrite it using regular expression :
query="apple" is rewrited in query="title:apple AND text:apple", for example.
Don't know if it's clever performancewise, but it works fine, altho
On 30-Jul-07, at 3:34 PM, Daniel Naber wrote:
Hi,
I want to search multiple fields by default (which is no supported by
StandardRequestHandler), but I also want to be able to use Lucene's
boolean syntax (AND/OR/NOT). This doesn't seem to be supported by
DisMaxRequestHandler. I will need to cop
16 matches
Mail list logo
