Awesome, following it now!
--
*John Blythe*
Product Manager & Lead Developer
251.605.3071 | j...@curvolabs.com
www.curvolabs.com
58 Adams Ave
Evansville, IN 47713
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Doug Turnbull <
dturnb...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> Glad you figured things out and fou
Glad you figured things out and found splainer useful! Pull requests, bugs,
feature requests welcome!
https://github.com/o19s/splainer
Doug
On Monday, May 18, 2015, John Blythe wrote:
> Doug,
>
> very very cool tool you've made there. thanks so much for sharing!
>
> i ended up removing the shi
Doug,
very very cool tool you've made there. thanks so much for sharing!
i ended up removing the shinglefilterfactory and voila! things are back in
good, working order with some great matching. i'm not 100% certain as to
why shingling was so ineffective. i'm guessing the stacked terms created
low
Doug,
A couple things quickly:
- I'll check in to that. How would you go about testing things, direct URL?
If so, how would you compose one of the examples above?
- yup, I used it extensively before testing scores to ensure that I was
getting things parsed appropriately (segmenting off the unit of
Hey John,
I think you likely do need to think about escaping the query operators. I
doubt the Solr admin could tell the difference.
For analysis, have you looked at the handy analysis tool in the Solr Admin
UI? Its pretty indespensible for figuring out if an analyzed query matches
an analyzed fie
Thanks again for the speediness, Doug.
Good to know on some of those things, not least of all the + indicating a
mandatory field and the parentheses. It seems like the escaping is pretty
robust in light of the product number.
I'm thinking it has to be largely related to the analyzer. Check this o
You might just need some syntax help. Not sure what the Solr admin escapes,
but many of the text in your query actually have reserved meaning. Also,
when a term appears without a fieldName:value directly in front of it, I
believe its going to search the default field (it's no longer attached to
the
Hey Doug,
Thanks for the quick reply.
No edismax just yet. Planning on getting there, but have been trying to
fine tune the 3 primary fields we use over the last week or so before
jumping into edismax and its nifty toolset to help push our accuracy and
precision even further (aside: is this a goo
Also, I wouldn't expect at all that query-to-query you'll get comparable
scores. I'm not at all surprised that suddenly you get big swings in
scoring. So many parts of the scoring equation can change query to query.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Turnbull <
dturnb...@opensourceconnections.c
> The maxScore is 772 when I remove the
description.
> I suppose the actual question, then, is if a low relevancy score on one
field
hurts the rest of them / the cumulative score,
This depends a lot on how you're searching over these fields. Is this a
(e)dismax query? Or a lucene query? Something
10 matches
Mail list logo
