Thanks for the reply Mike. I think that was what was causing the issue. I
discovered the effect after I
bumped up the numbers a bit. Here's what I see now.
Index time boost My Custom Similarity Default Similarity
Doc 1133226.63131072 1213
On 3/28/07, escher2k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike,
I am not doing anything custom for this test. I am assuming that the
Default Similarity is used.
Surprisingly, if I remove the document level boost (set to 1.0) and just
have a field level boost, the result
seems to be correct.
Another d
Mike,
I am not doing anything custom for this test. I am assuming that the
Default Similarity is used.
Surprisingly, if I remove the document level boost (set to 1.0) and just
have a field level boost, the result
seems to be correct.
Mike Klaas wrote:
>
> On 3/28/07, escher2k <[EMAIL PROTECT
On 3/28/07, escher2k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, I fail to understand where it is doing a multiplication by 1.25
(score (2.5) = field_boost (2.0) * 1.25 ??).
As I said above, lengthNorm is also multiplied in. This will depend
on your custom similar what value(s) you have in the field.
Chris,
Earlier I was trying to modify the Similarity computation to make it
field dependent (we are trying to change tf based on the field). Now, I have
reverted the custom computation so that the default Similarity is used. Fro
testing, I boosted a single field in one doc.
Y
...
This is w
Ditto everything Mike said, but i'm also curious what Similarity changes
you made ... without knowing what that code looks like, all bets are off
in terms of anyone being able to help you understand the scores you are
seeing.
: I am not quite sure how the score changed from 1.33 to 1.25. I am not
On 3/27/07, escher2k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am implementing a document boost at indexing time for the documents. I read
some posting that
seemed to indicate that omitNorm=false is needed to retain the document
boosting for retrieval.
After I did that, it looks like I am not able to get bac
