I think what Radha Krishna (is this really her name?) means is different:
She wants to return only the matching token instead of the complete
field value.
Indeed, this is not possible. But you could use highlighting
(http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HighlightingParameters), and then extract
the matchi
That's because the phrases are being tokenized and then indexed by Solr.
You have to define a new fieldType which is not tokenized.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory
I'm not sure if it would solve your problem
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:46 AM,
On 28.05.2010 22:06, Chris Hostetter wrote:
and one "text_prefix"
defined similarly but with an additional EdgeNGramTokenFilter used when
indexing to generate "prefix" tokens. then search those fields using
dismax...
To be sure that I understand this right:
Am I right that I should not stopwor
Well, the index does, indeed, get bigger. But the searches
get much faster because there's no term expansion going
on. It's another time/space tradeoff. I'm afraid you'll have
to just experiment a bit to see if this is an acceptable tradeoff.
in your particular situation
The real memory hit i
Thank you, Chris and Erick, for the answers,
it was new to me that "the*" is expanded to all known the* words in the
index. Good to know.
And yes, the AND operation between the query terms are certainly the
problem. (I would like to switch to OR instead. The result set will grow
the more wo
: Searching on the* (assuming the is a stopword) will search on
: (them OR theory OR thespian) assuming those three words are in
: your index. It will NOT search on the. So I think you're OK, or are
: you seeing anomalous results?
i think the missing pieces to hte puzzle here are:
1) wildcard an
Hmmm, I don't really see the problem here. I'll have to use English
examples...
Searching on the* (assuming the is a stopword) will search on
(them OR theory OR thespian) assuming those three words are in
your index. It will NOT search on the. So I think you're OK, or are
you seeing anomalous resu
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:31 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 10/29/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> > > On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filte
On 10/29/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> > On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters?
> >
> > Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters?
>
> Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked out a fix for yet.
> The issue is that you can't just run the p
On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters?
Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked out a fix for yet.
The issue is that you can't just run the prefix through the filters
because of things like stop words, stemm
11 matches
Mail list logo
