Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? If *your* application
requires this, you could always copy the field to a non-stemmed
field and apply boosts...
Erick
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:21 AM, abhishes wrote:
>
> I kind of suspected stemming to be the reason behind this. But I consider
> stemm
On 09.03.2010 16:01 Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>
>> I kind of suspected stemming to be the reason behind this.
>> But I consider stemming to be a good feature.
>
> This is the side effect of stemming. Stemming increases recall while harming
> precision.
But most people want the best possible combinat
I kind of suspected stemming to be the reason behind this. But I consider
stemming to be a good feature.
The point is that if an exact match exists, then solr should report that
first and then stemmed results should be reported.
disabling stemming altogether would be a step in the wrong dire
> I kind of suspected stemming to be the reason behind this.
> But I consider stemming to be a good feature.
This is the side effect of stemming. Stemming increases recall while harming
precision.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM, abhishes wrote:
>
> I am indexing a column in a database. I have chosen field type of text for
> this column (this type was defined in the sample schema file which comes in
> the Solr Example).
>
> When I search for the word "impress" and top 3 results. I get these
>
>
> > I kind of suspected stemming to be the reason behind this.
> > But I consider stemming to be a good feature.
>
> This is the side effect of stemming. Stemming increases recall while
> harming precision.
>
This is a side effect of stemming, the way it is currently implemented in
Lucene. Ste
