I did not realize the LucidWords.jar comes with an option to install the
sources :-)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Eric Grobler wrote:
> Good Morning, afternoon or evening...
>
> If someone installed Solr using the LucidWorks.jar (1.4) installation how
> can one make a small change and recomp
Sorry, please ignore my previous message, I figured it out. (That is, use
the console mode)
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM, joyce chan wrote:
> Hi
>
> Does anybody know how to install LucidWorks Solr (LucidWorks.jar) without
> the gui installer? Or maybe to do it as a silent install?
>
> Than
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Shashi Kant wrote:
> Why do these approaches have to be mutually exclusive?
> Do a dictionary lookup, if no satisfactory match found use an
> algorithmic stemmer. Would probably save a few CPU cycles by
> algorithmic stemming iff necessary.
>
>
by the way, if you
I like this discussion pretty much.
It is a really complex topic.
I want to add another example.
In english, you are saying "it is a red dress".
In german it would mean "es ist ein rotes Kleid" (words can be translated in
the same order).
However the basic form of "rotes" is "rot".
If your user
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> Stemming/lematization will pretty much always improve recall at the cost of
> precision - that's nothing new. If you stem instead, are you going to want
> documents that had run and water when you searched for running water? I just
> don't s
On 4/21/10 3:22 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Its an orthogonal issue - running will have that problem no matter what. It
doesn't affect whether a user that types running may be just as interested
in a doc that matches all of their other terms bu
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> Its an orthogonal issue - running will have that problem no matter what. It
> doesn't affect whether a user that types running may be just as interested
> in a doc that matches all of their other terms but has ran instead of
> running. Its al
On 4/21/10 2:20 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Right - I agree they both have their strengths and weakness' - but you
usually don't get things like running->ran with stemming. Like most things,
its a tradeoff. There is always a hybrid approach as
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> Right - I agree they both have their strengths and weakness' - but you
> usually don't get things like running->ran with stemming. Like most things,
> its a tradeoff. There is always a hybrid approach as well.
>
>
I think running/ran has mor
On 4/21/10 2:02 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
I believe that's covered by morphology?
The problem is typically a morphological analyzer emits multiple solutions,
which include POS.
So morphology can tell you that "building" has two s
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> I believe that's covered by morphology?
>
>
The problem is typically a morphological analyzer emits multiple solutions,
which include POS.
So morphology can tell you that "building" has two solutions: the gerund
form which you might stem t
On 4/21/10 1:43 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
But they don't usually call 'non algorithmic' stemming 'stemming'. Stemming
usually means using a simple heuristic process. When you use vocabulary and
morphology, its usually called lemmatization
On 4/21/10 1:43 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
But they don't usually call 'non algorithmic' stemming 'stemming'.
Stemming usually means using a simple heuristic process. When you use
vocabulary and morphology, its usually called lemmatization
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> But they don't usually call 'non algorithmic' stemming 'stemming'.
> Stemming usually means using a simple heuristic process. When you use
> vocabulary and morphology, its usually called lemmatization rather than
> stemming.
>
>
Lemmatizati
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> But they don't usually call 'non algorithmic' stemming 'stemming'. Stemming
> usually means using a simple heuristic process. When you use vocabulary and
> morphology, its usually called lemmatization rather than stemming.
>
"stemmer" is jargo
Why do these approaches have to be mutually exclusive?
Do a dictionary lookup, if no satisfactory match found use an
algorithmic stemmer. Would probably save a few CPU cycles by
algorithmic stemming iff necessary.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> sy to look at the "faults" o
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking: you haven't "ditched" stemmers altogether -- you've
> ditched *algorithmic* stemmers and moved to a *dictionary* based stemmer
> -- but it's still a stemmer.
>
> (i just don't want people reading this thread to be confus
On 4/21/10 1:18 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: Regarding stemmers, I ditched them altogether a long time ago in favor
: of a dictionary of morphologies of all known words (for any given
: language). A simple lookup of any word morphology thus produces the set,
: including the correct stem.
Strictl
: Regarding stemmers, I ditched them altogether a long time ago in favor
: of a dictionary of morphologies of all known words (for any given
: language). A simple lookup of any word morphology thus produces the set,
: including the correct stem.
Strictly speaking: you haven't "ditched" stemmers a
> Andy,
>
> This will help with smooth injection of your multilingual
> documents into Solr (multilingual either in the sense of 1
> doc containing fields in multiple languages or 1 index
> containing documents in different languages):
>
> http://sematext.com/products/multilingual-indexer/inde
http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
> From: Andy
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 8:45:40 AM
> Subject: Re: LucidWorks Solr
>
> Thanks for the explanation Mitc
no big deal, just wanted to mention.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM, wrote:
> > This is a little bit of hijacking going on here, but
> You are right. Accept my regrets.
>
>
> > It's algorithmic. That is, there isn't a list of variants that
> > stem to the same infinitive, and your state
> This is a little bit of hijacking going on here, but
You are right. Accept my regrets.
> It's algorithmic. That is, there isn't a list of variants that
> stem to the same infinitive, and your statement
> "always the same infintive for any derivate of the word"
> isn't quite what happens.
>
My use requires a mroe correct processing of language than what you define
as a stemmer. My experience with stemmers is that even with some words
without a stem, it makes a new word from it. I consider those false
positives.
My approach is based on the need to recognize that walk, walked, walking
Yes, you are right, thank you Erick.
I've lost this point and thought only of common cases, not of special ones.
However, one can combine the mentioned solutions and different stem-filters
in different fields, so that one can be quite (not absolutely) sure, that in
most of all cases the applicat
This is a little bit of hijacking going on here, but
It's algorithmic. That is, there isn't a list of variants that
stem to the same infinitive, and your statement
"always the same infintive for any derivate of the word"
isn't quite what happens.
Stemmers will always produce the same infiniti
I am curious:
The idea behind a stemmer is not that he produces the correct infinitive for
a given word. The idea is that he produces always the same infintive for any
derivate of the word.
What would be, if there is an unknown word? For example something like
slang? How does your solution works
gt; --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Darren Govoni wrote:
>
>> From: Darren Govoni
>> Subject: Re: LucidWorks Solr
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 7:39 AM
>> Regarding stemmers, I ditched them
>> altogether a long time ago in favor
&
Thanks for the tip.
Are there any publicly available dictionary of morphologies that I could use?
Or did you build your own one?
--- On Mon, 4/19/10, Darren Govoni wrote:
> From: Darren Govoni
> Subject: Re: LucidWorks Solr
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Monday, April
ded way to deal with documents in multiple languages?
--- On Mon, 4/19/10, MitchK wrote:
> From: MitchK
> Subject: Re: LucidWorks Solr
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 4:36 AM
>
> Andy, I think it is important to know what a stemmer reall
Regarding stemmers, I ditched them altogether a long time ago in favor
of a dictionary of morphologies of all known words (for any given
language). A simple lookup of any word morphology thus produces the set,
including the correct stem.
Works great. 100% of the time.
Just a tip from me.
On Mon
Andy, I think it is important to know what a stemmer really is.
It reduces words to their infinitves. Those infinitives do not refer to the
real infinitive everytime, but however: for the system, it is an infinitive,
since all its derivates could be reduced to the same form.
Thats a stemmer.
Acc
--- On Sun, 4/18/10, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> Sure, but I'm biased. ;-) Hopefully, you will find it
> useful, but choose the one that best fits your needs (and
> let me know if you need help assessing that.)
>
Thanks for the explanation Grant.
WHat is the advantage of KStem over the sta
On Apr 18, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Andy wrote:
> Just wanted to know if anyone has used LucidWorks Solr.
>
> - How do you compare it to the standard Apache Solr?
We take a release of Solr. We wrap it w/ an installer, tomcat/jetty, our
reference guide, Luke, etc. We also add in an optimized versio
Thanks for asking, I am interested as well in reading the response to
your questions.
Paolo
Andy wrote:
Just wanted to know if anyone has used LucidWorks Solr.
- How do you compare it to the standard Apache Solr?
- the non-blocking IO of LucidWorks Solr -- is that for networking IO or disk
s.
-Kevin
From: blargy
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 12:31:09 PM
Subject: Re: LucidWorks Solr
Kevin,
When you say you just included the war you mean the /packs/solr.war correct?
I see that the KStemmer is nicely packed in there but I don'
Kevin,
When you say you just included the war you mean the /packs/solr.war correct?
I see that the KStemmer is nicely packed in there but I don't see LucidGaze
anywhere. Have you had any experience using this?
So I'm guessing you would suggest using the LucidWorks solr.war over the
apache-solr-
I'm trying it out right now. I hope it will work well out-of-box for
indexing/searching a set of documents with frequent update.
-aj
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM, blargy wrote:
>
> Has anyone used this?:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/Downloads/LucidWorks-for-Solr
>
> Other than the KStem
I used it mostly for KStemmer, but I also liked the fact that it included about
a dozen or so stable patches since Solr 1.4 was released. We just use the
included WAR in our project however. We don't use the installer or anything
like that.
From: blargy
To:
39 matches
Mail list logo
