Thanks! It seems that I really go the wrong direction.
- Original Message -
From: "Ahmet Arslan"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
The request is from our business
team, they wish user of our product c
> The request is from our business
> team, they wish user of our product can
> type in partial string of a word that exists in title or
> body field. But now
> I also doubt if this request is really necessary?
"partial string of a word"? I think there is misunderstanding here.
SingleFilter oper
Thanks! I'll give more effort to understand your suggestion & that Norm
thing.
- Original Message -
From: "MitchK"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
No, I mean that you use an additional
t 23, 2010 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
1. We have over ten million news articles to build into
Solr index.
2. We copy several fields, such as title, author, body,
caption of attahed photos into a new field for default
search.
3. We then wanna use shingle
n't set outputUnigrams="true" will
>>>> make index size about twice than when it's set to false?
>>>
>>> Sure index will be bigger. I didn't know that this is problem for you.
>>> But
>>> if you have a list of spe
> 1. We have over ten million news articles to build into
> Solr index.
> 2. We copy several fields, such as title, author, body,
> caption of attahed photos into a new field for default
> search.
> 3. We then wanna use shingle filter on this new field.
> 4. We can't predict what new single-word no
an making another
field that stores special words particularly but no indexing for that field?
Scott
- Original Message -
From: "MitchK"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
Hi,
keepword-filter is no solution for
gt;> - Original Message - From: "Ahmet Arslan"
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 1:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single
>> word
>>
>>
>> >> I am building index with Shingle
>> >> fi
ate other tokens. So index size will be okey.
>
> Scott
>
> - Original Message - From: "Ahmet Arslan"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single
> word
>
>
> >> I am buildi
Isn't set outputUnigrams="true" will make index size about twice than when
it's set to false?
Scott
- Original Message -
From: "Ahmet Arslan"
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
I
> I am building index with Shingle
> filter. We know it's minimum 2-gram but I also want keep
> some special single word, e.g. IBM, Microsoft, etc. i.e. I
> want to do a minimum 2-gram but also want to have these
> single word in my index, Is it possible?
outputUnigrams="true" parameter does not w
er"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Shingle but also keep special single word
Hi Scott,
Is there a reason why you wouldn't just index these special words into
another field and then search over both fields? That would also have the
nice property of bein
Hi Scott,
Is there a reason why you wouldn't just index these special words into another
field and then search over both fields? That would also have the nice property
of being able to boost on the special word field if you wanted.
HTH
Brendan
On Aug 20, 2010, at 6:19 AM, scott chu (朱炎詹) wrote
13 matches
Mail list logo
