On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, mike anderson wrote:
> Could this be related to SOLR-1423?
Nope, and I haven't been able to reproduce the bug you saw either.
-Yonik
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Yonik Seeley
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I'll see if I can reproduce...
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.
Could this be related to SOLR-1423?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Thanks, I'll see if I can reproduce...
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:10 AM, mike anderson
> wrote:
> > Yeah.. that was weird. removing the line "forever,for eve
Thanks, I'll see if I can reproduce...
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:10 AM, mike anderson wrote:
> Yeah.. that was weird. removing the line "forever,for ever" from my synonyms
> file fixed the problem. In fact, i was having the same problem for every
> double w
Yeah.. that was weird. removing the line "forever,for ever" from my synonyms
file fixed the problem. In fact, i was having the same problem for every
double word like that. I decided I didn't really need the synonym filter for
that field so I just took it out, but I'd really like to know what the
p
That's pretty strange... perhaps something to do with your synonyms
file mapping "for" to a zero length token?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM, mike anderson wrote:
> I'm kind of stumped by this one.. is it something obvious?
> I'm running the latest trunk
