Solr does not analyze queries with wildcards in it. So, with ch*p-seq,
it will search for terms that start with ch and end with p-seq. Since
your indexer has analyzed all tokens before, only chip and seq are in
the index.
See
https://solr.pl/en/2010/12/20/wildcard-queries-and-how-solr-handles-them
I am using edismax query parser.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Selvam Raman wrote:
> Solr version - 6.4.0
>
> "title_en":["Chip-seq"]
>
> When i fired query like below
>
> 1) chip-seq
> 2) chi*
>
> it is giving expected result, for this case one result.
>
> But when i am searching with wildc
Hi,
You could try this:
drop wildcard stuff altogether:
1) Employ edgengramfilter at index time.
2) Use plain searches at query time.
Ahmet
On Friday, November 25, 2016 4:59 PM, Sandeep Khanzode
wrote:
Hi All,
Can someone please assist with this query?
My data consists of:
1.] John Doe
2.
Hi All,
Can someone please assist with this query?
My data consists of:
1.] John Doe
2.] John V. Doe
3.] Johnson Doe
4.] Johnson V. Doe
5.] John Smith
6.] Johnson V. Smith
7.] Matt Doe
8.] Matt V. Doe
9.] Matt Doe
10.] Matthew V. Doe
11.] Matthew Smith
12.] Matthew V. Smith
Querying ...
(a) Mat
Hi All, Erick,
Please suggest. Would like to use the ComplexPhraseQueryParser for searching
text (with wildcard) that may contain special characters.
For example ...John* should match John V. DoeJohn* should match Johnson
SmithBruce-Willis* should match Bruce-WillisV.* should match John V. F. Doe
Hi,
This is the typical TextField with ...
SRK
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 1:38 AM, Reth RM
wrote:
what is the fieldType of those records?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Sandeep Khanzode
wrote:
Hi Erick,
I gave this a try.
These are my results. Th
what is the fieldType of those records?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Sandeep Khanzode <
sandeep_khanz...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Erick,
> I gave this a try.
> These are my results. There is a record with "John D. Smith", and another
> named "John Doe".
>
> 1.] {!complexphrase inOrder=t
Hi Erick,
I gave this a try.
These are my results. There is a record with "John D. Smith", and another named
"John Doe".
1.] {!complexphrase inOrder=true}name:"John D.*" ... does not fetch any
results.
2.] {!complexphrase inOrder=true}name:"John D*" ... fetches both results.
Second observ
Thanks, Erick.
I am actually not trying to use the String field (prefer a TextField here).
But, in my comparisons with TextField, it seems that something like phrase
matching with whitespace and wildcard (like, 'my do*' or say, 'my dog*', or
say, 'my dog has*') can only be accomplished with a st
You have to query text and string fields differently, that's just the
way it works. The problem is getting the query string through the
parser as a _single_ token or as multiple tokens.
Let's say you have a string field with the "a b" example. You have a
single token
a b that starts at offset 0.
Hi Erick, Reth,
The 'a\ b*' as well as the q.op=AND approach worked (successfully) only for
StrField for me.
Any attempt at creating a 'a\ b*' for a TextField does not match any documents.
The parsedQuery in debug mode does show 'field:a b*'. I am sure there are
documents that should match.
An
You can escape the space with a backslash as 'a\ b*'
Best,
Erick
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Reth RM wrote:
> I don't think you can do wildcard on StrField. For text field, if your
> query is "category:(test m*)" the parsed query will be "category:test OR
> category:m*"
> You can add q.o
I don't think you can do wildcard on StrField. For text field, if your
query is "category:(test m*)" the parsed query will be "category:test OR
category:m*"
You can add q.op=AND to make an AND between those terms.
For phrase type wild card query support, as per docs, it
is ComplexPhraseQueryPars
You don't need to ngram at all if your queries themselves are going to be
wildcarded.
Erik
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 17:21, Kelly, Frank wrote:
>
> Hello Lucene Folks,
>
> Newbie here - I've found how Solr does Wildcard searches of the form
> field:a* using the EdgeNGramFilterFactor
Thanks, Erick. That really helped us in learning about tokens and how the
Analyzer works. Thank you!
Warm regards,
Alex
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 September 2012 3:56 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard
Take a look at admin/analysis on the text_general type You'll see that
StandardTokenizer is breaking the input strings up into individual tokens
on the colons and hyphens, so
2010-01-27T00:00:00Z
becomes the tokens
2010 01 27T00 00 00Z
admin/analysis should be your first reflex when you encounter
> We're having difficulty with some wildcard searches in Solr
> 4.0Beta. We're using a copyField to write a "tdate" to a
> "text_general" field. We are using the default definition
> for the "text_general" field type.
>
> indexed="true" stored="true" />
> type="text_general" indexed="tr
Maybe you can take a look at this Jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1604
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Alexander Cougarman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to do wildcard searches on multiple words? Here's an
> example: We need to search on the words "Dearly loved friends" using t
for searching sub-strings, ngrams are generally preferred. To expand
on Jack's point.
The whole purpose behind reversed wildcards is that without them, searching for
*abcd requires that _every_ term in your field be enumerated, which can be very
expensive. Adding in reversed wildcards causes this
I think a doubled-ended wildcard essentially defeats the whole point of the
reverse wildcard filter, which is to improve performance by avoiding a
leading wildcard. So, if your data is such that a leading wildcard is okay,
just use normal wildcards to begin with.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Origin
That was it! Thank you very much.
- Original Message
From: Robert Muir
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 5:58:03 PM
Subject: Re: wildcard searches not consistent
> but
>
> facto?y -- 0 (expecting 1)
>
>
you have stemming enabled for the
> but
>
> facto?y -- 0 (expecting 1)
>
>
you have stemming enabled for the field? stemming will make your wildcards
behave strangely. I would recommend you turn it off. because stemming likely
turned factory into factori or similar
> I thought these are all valid searches but am I missing somethi
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM, AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
> > That'd be great. Please open an issue in Jira and attach a
> > patch. See
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute
> >
>
> Hi Shalin,
> I opened an issue (SOLR-1604) and attached a patch as well as a maven
> project to enable this f
> That'd be great. Please open an issue in Jira and attach a
> patch. See
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute
>
Hi Shalin,
I opened an issue (SOLR-1604) and attached a patch as well as a maven project
to enable this feature without applying the patch. I couldn't consume
ComplexPhraseQ
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:29 AM, AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
>
> > You can do it with the
> > complexphrasequery parser in lucerne contrib (I think that's
> > the name). You have to plug it in to solr though - someone
> > has already donethis bit I'm not sure if it was controbbed
> > back.
>
> I would be
> You can do it with the
> complexphrasequery parser in lucerne contrib (I think that's
> the name). You have to plug it in to solr though - someone
> has already donethis bit I'm not sure if it was controbbed
> back.
I would be happy to contribute it, what should i do?
he same problem with accentued characters. Cause the
> original token is not stored with this filter.
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De : Avlesh Singh
> À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Octobre 2009, 10h41mn
.
Laurent
De : Avlesh Singh
À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Octobre 2009, 10h41mn 56s
Objet : Re: Re : wildcard searches
You are processing your tokens in the filter that you wrote. I am assuming
it is the first filter being applied and removes the characte
nable wildcard queries, preserving the original token
> (while processing each token in your filter) might work."
>
> Could you explain this point please ?
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
> ____
> De : Avlesh Singh
> À : solr-user@lucene.
ease ?
Laurent
De : Avlesh Singh
À : solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Envoyé le : Lundi, 5 Octobre 2009, 20h30mn 54s
Objet : Re: wildcard searches
Zambrano is right, Laurent. The analyzers for a field are not invoked for
wildcard queries. You custom filter is not even getting executed at
On 10/05/2009 01:18 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Can_I_combine_wildcard_and_phrase_search.2C_e.g._.22foo_ba.2A.22.3F
Thanks for that link
When I said not filters, I meant Token
Zambrano is right, Laurent. The analyzers for a field are not invoked for
wildcard queries. You custom filter is not even getting executed at
query-time.
If you want to enable wildcard queries, preserving the original token (while
processing each token in your filter) might work.
Cheers
Avlesh
On
>
> First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
>
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Can_I_combine_wildcard_and_phrase_search.2C_e.g._.22foo_ba.2A.22.3F
When I said not filters, I meant TokenFilters which is what I believe you
> mean by 'not analyzed'
>
Analysis is a
Avlesh, I don't understand your answer.
First of all, I know of no way of doing wildcard phrase queries.
When I said not filters, I meant TokenFilters which is what I believe
you mean by 'not analyzed'
On 10/05/2009 12:27 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searc
>
> No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
>
Ah! Not like that ..
I guess, it is just that the phrase searches using wildcards are not
analyzed.
Cheers
Avlesh
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Christian Zambrano wrote:
> No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
>
> I couldn'
No filters are applied to wildcard/fuzzy searches.
I couldn't find a reference to this on either the solr or lucene
documentation but I read it on the Solr book from PACKT
On 10/05/2009 12:09 PM, Angel Ice wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a little question regarding the search engine when a wildca
rent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache.org
[mailto:solr-user-return-20352-laurent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache
.org] On Behalf Of Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:11 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard searches
Hi,
Another option for 1) is to use n-gr
rent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache.org
[mailto:solr-user-return-20352-laurent.vauthrin=disney@lucene.apache
.org] On Behalf Of Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:11 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wildcard searches
Hi,
Another option for 1) is to use n-grams
Hi,
Another option for 1) is to use n-grams with token begin/end symbols. Then you
won't need to use wildcards at all, but you'll have a larger index.
2) may be added to Lucene in the near future, actually, I saw a related JIRA
issue. But in the mean time, yes, you coul dimplement it via a c
That's also what I did in my code, I search for * or ?, if exists,
lowercase the query string.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:13 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: wil
On 7/10/07, Karen Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Yonik, whene* does indeed work thanks. Though the Context diff patch fails
against my 1.2 download:
For now, I'd advise just lowercasing wildcard queries in the client if
you know that is how your field is indexed.
-Yonik
Hi Yonik, whene* does indeed work thanks. Though the Context diff patch fails
against my 1.2 download:
patch -p0 < lowercase_prefix.patch
patching file src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/FieldType.java
Hunk #1 FAILED at 24.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 387.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
On 7/10/07, Karen Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand from browsing through the mailing list that I won't be able to
perform wildcard searches using disMax request handler. But why doesn't any
of the following wildcard searches work when using the standard request
handler:
Firstly
43 matches
Mail list logo
