Re: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

uh...oops - sorry about that Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: David M Giannone Date: 1/25/18 8:28 PM (GMT-05:00) To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard q

Re: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

X07Z3BO14C confirmation# for 1/30 8:30 appt. oil change / tire rotation Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. Confidentiali

Re: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

ucene.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query > > Hi, > > solr version 6.4.2 > > hl.method = unified, hl.bs.type=Word, this setting working fine for normal > queries but failed in wildcard queries.(tried other hl.bs.type parmeter a

Re: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Selvam Raman Date: 1/17/18 11:47 AM (GMT-05:00) To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highlighter is not working for wildcard query Hi, solr version 6.4.2 hl.me

Re: Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

Query Parser defType=edismax On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Selvam Raman wrote: > Hi, > > solr version 6.4.2 > > hl.method = unified, hl.bs.type=Word, this setting working fine for normal > queries but failed in wildcard queries.(tried other hl.bs.type parmeter and > without hl.b

Highlighter is not working for wildcard query

Hi, solr version 6.4.2 hl.method = unified, hl.bs.type=Word, this setting working fine for normal queries but failed in wildcard queries.(tried other hl.bs.type parmeter and without hl.bs.type as well, highlighting not working for wildcard queries) hl.method = original, this is working fine for

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

ame score 1.0, so maybe not a solution? > > Bernd > >> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bernd Fehling < >> bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: >> >>> Any wildcard query will do it, e.g. .../select?q=ant*&wt=json&... >>> >>&g

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

Bernd > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bernd Fehling < > bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > >> Any wildcard query will do it, e.g. .../select?q=ant*&wt=json&... >> >> A couple of "shift + reload" (to bypass cache) in the browser and yo

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

Since all scores are equal it just can not break this tie. Add id as a sort clause to make results deterministic. On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bernd Fehling < bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Any wildcard query will do it, e.g. .../select?q=ant*&wt=json&... >

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

i thought you said different results i.e. different count. On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Bernd Fehling < bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Any wildcard query will do it, e.g. .../select?q=ant*&wt=json&... > > A couple of "shift + reload" (to bypass cac

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

Any wildcard query will do it, e.g. .../select?q=ant*&wt=json&... A couple of "shift + reload" (to bypass cache) in the browser and you will see that the order of the result changes sometimes. Definately no updates/ingestion because it's currently a SolrCloud test system

Re: SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

er) and a wildcard query > I get different results between the same query. > > I assume this is alltogether due to the distributed search and > the response time of each server and the constant score of 1.0 ??? > > Is there any config where I can set the shard order (shard_1...sha

SolrCloud wildcard query result order change

With SolrCloud 6.4.2 (5 shards on 5 server) and a wildcard query I get different results between the same query. I assume this is alltogether due to the distributed search and the response time of each server and the constant score of 1.0 ??? Is there any config where I can set the shard order

Re: Wildcard query difference

It's the same in both cases: enumerate all terms that start with "a" and collect them into (conceptually) a huge OR query and execute it. There's been some work lately to avoid the TooManyBooleanClauses exception, but it's still the case that every term starting with "a" has to be examined and eith

Wildcard query difference

I have a question in terms of how solr/lucene will lookup terms from postings list for the below two queries: 1. a* 2. a*gh My understanding is that for first, it will get all terms starting with 'a' and issue query on those terms. For second, it will again get all terms starting with 'a', then r

Re: Wildcard query behavior.

Yes! wildcards are not analyzed. Thanks Shwan for reminding me. Thanks Erick for your response. Best, Modassar On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Here's a blog on the subject: > > https://lucidworks.com/blog/2011/11/29/whats-with-lowercasing-wildcard-multiterm-queries-in-s

Re: Wildcard query behavior.

Here's a blog on the subject: https://lucidworks.com/blog/2011/11/29/whats-with-lowercasing-wildcard-multiterm-queries-in-solr/ bq: When validator is changed to validate, both at query time and index time, then should not validator*/validator return the same results at-least? This is one of those

Re: Wildcard query behavior.

On 4/18/2016 1:18 AM, Modassar Ather wrote: > When I search for f:validator I get 80K+ documents whereas if I search for > f:validator* I get only around 150 results. > > When I checked on analysis page I see that validator is changed to > validate. Per my understanding in both the above cases it s

Re: Wildcard query behavior.

Thanks Reth for your response. When validator is changed to validate, both at query time and index time, then should not validator*/validator return the same results at-least? E.g. 5 documents contains validator. At index time validator got changed to validate. Now when validator* is searched it

Re: Wildcard query behavior.

If you search for f:validat*, then I believe you will get same number of results. Please check. f:validator* is searching for records that have prefix "validator" where as field with stemmer which stems "validator" to "validate" (if this stemming was applied at index time as well as query time) it

Wildcard query behavior.

Hi, Please help me understand following. I have analysis chain which uses KStemFilterFactory for a field. Solr version is 5.4.0 When I search for f:validator I get 80K+ documents whereas if I search for f:validator* I get only around 150 results. When I checked on analysis page I see that valid

Re: One complex wildcard query lead solr OOM

e the WildcardQuery is generated. > > > > -- Jack Krupansky > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Jian Mou wrote: > > > > > We are using Solr as our search engine, and recently notice some user > > > input wildcard query can lead to Sol

Re: One complex wildcard query lead solr OOM

nerated. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Jian Mou wrote: >>> >>> We are using Solr as our search engine, and recently notice some user >>> input wildcard query can lead to Solr dead loop in >>> &

Re: One complex wildcard query lead solr OOM

ardQuery is generated. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Jian Mou wrote: > > > We are using Solr as our search engine, and recently notice some user > > input wildcard query can lead to Solr dead loop in > > > > org.apache.lucene

Re: One complex wildcard query lead solr OOM

Krupansky On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Jian Mou wrote: > We are using Solr as our search engine, and recently notice some user > input wildcard query can lead to Solr dead loop in > > org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.Operations.determinize() > > , and it also eats memory and fi

One complex wildcard query lead solr OOM

We are using Solr as our search engine, and recently notice some user input wildcard query can lead to Solr dead loop in org.apache.lucene.util.automaton.Operations.determinize() , and it also eats memory and finally OOM. the wildcard query seems like **?-???o·???è??**。 Although we

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

se a separate query parser for this obvious, common case is... > absurd. > > (What does Elasticsearch do for this case??) > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Erick Erickson > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:38 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org ; A

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

o for this case??) -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Erick Erickson Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:38 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org ; Ahmet Arslan Subject: Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1 Wildcards are a tough thing to get your head a

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

sed query looks like and compare with the >> admin/analysis page >> >> But yeah, it's a matter of getting all the parts (query parser and >> analysis chains) to "do the right thing". >> >> Best, >> Erick >> >> On

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

t; But yeah, it's a matter of getting all the parts (query parser and > analysis chains) to "do the right thing". > > Best, > Erick > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Sven Schönfeldt > wrote: >> Hi Solr-Users, >> >> i am trying to do a wildcard

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

gt; But yeah, it's a matter of getting all the parts (query parser and > analysis chains) to "do the right thing". > > Best, > Erick > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Sven Schönfeldt > wrote: >> Hi Solr-Users, >> >> i am trying to do a wildcard

Re: No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

looks like and compare with the admin/analysis page But yeah, it's a matter of getting all the parts (query parser and analysis chains) to "do the right thing". Best, Erick On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Sven Schönfeldt wrote: > Hi Solr-Users, > > i am trying to do a

No results for a wildcard query for text_general field in solr 4.1

Hi Solr-Users, i am trying to do a wildcard query on a dynamic textfield (_t), but don’t get the right result. The configuration for the field type is „text_general“, the default configuration

Re: Results Order When Performing Wildcard Query

: My gut says the difference in assignment of docids has to do with how the : FileListEntityProcessor docids just represent the order documents are added to the index. if you use DIH with FileListEntityProcessor to create o

Re: Results Order When Performing Wildcard Query

st-framework/index.html<http://lucene.apache.org/solr/4_1_0/solr-test-framework/index.html> >> **> >> >> fails >> under Ubuntu 12.04 because the Solr results I expected for a wildcard >> query >> of the test data are ordered differently under Ubuntu than W

Re: Results Order When Performing Wildcard Query

se the Solr results I expected for a wildcard query of the test data are ordered differently under Ubuntu than Windows. On both Windows and Ubuntu all items in the result set have a score of 1.0 and appear to be ordered by docid (which looks like in corresponds to alphabetical unique id on Windo

Results Order When Performing Wildcard Query

for a wildcard query of the test data are ordered differently under Ubuntu than Windows. On both Windows and Ubuntu all items in the result set have a score of 1.0 and appear to be ordered by docid (which looks like in corresponds to alphabetical unique id on Windows but not Ubuntu). I'm guessing th

Re: All-wildcard query performance

> Hi, > > Our application sometimes generates queries with one of the constraints: > field:[* TO *] > > I expected this query performance to be the same as if we omitted the > "field" constraint completely. However, I see the performance of the two > queries to differ drastically (3ms without

All-wildcard query performance

Hi, Our application sometimes generates queries with one of the constraints: field:[* TO *] I expected this query performance to be the same as if we omitted the "field" constraint completely. However, I see the performance of the two queries to differ drastically (3ms without all-wildcard

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing, I'll ponder on it. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-query-vs-facet-prefix-for-autocomplete-tp3995199p3995899.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

maria2 <[hidden >> email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3995706&i=0>> >> wrote: >> > I'll consider using the other methods, but I'd like to know which would >> be >> > faster among the two approaches mentioned in my openi

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

er/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3995706&i=0>> > wrote: > > I'll consider using the other methods, but I'd like to know which would > be > > faster among the two approaches mentioned in my opening post. > > > > -- > > View this message in context:

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

17, 2012 at 3:18 AM, santamaria2 wrote: > I'll consider using the other methods, but I'd like to know which would be > faster among the two approaches mentioned in my opening post. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-query-vs

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

I'll consider using the other methods, but I'd like to know which would be faster among the two approaches mentioned in my opening post. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-query-vs-facet-prefix-for-autocomplete-tp3995199p3995458.html Sent fro

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

term component will be faster. like below: http://host:port/solr/terms?terms.fl=content&terms.prefix=sol -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-query-vs-facet-prefix-for-autocomplete-tp3995199p3995378.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archiv

Re: Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

e common approaches, but I have a question about wildcard > query vs facet.prefix. > > Say I want autocomplete for a title: 'Shadows of the Damned'. I want this > to > appear as a suggestion if I type 'sha' or 'dam' or 'the'. I don'

Wildcard query vs facet.prefix for autocomplete?

I'm about to implement an autocomplete mechanism for my search box. I've read about some of the common approaches, but I have a question about wildcard query vs facet.prefix. Say I want autocomplete for a title: 'Shadows of the Damned'. I want this to appear as a suggestio

Re: Wildcard query with uppercase characters gets no result in edismax handler

This is fixed for many cases in 3.6 (i.e. current but unreleased 3.x code line) and trunk, see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2438 Best Erick 2012/1/20 Tomás Fernández Löbbe : > You'll get this same behavior with edismax or lucene QP. Wildcard queries > are not analyzed (not the lowe

Re: Wildcard query with uppercase characters gets no result in edismax handler

You'll get this same behavior with edismax or lucene QP. Wildcard queries are not analyzed (not the lowercase filter nor any other). 2012/1/20 Matthias Müller > Hi, > > I'm using an edismax handler > All fields and queries are lower case (LowerCaseFilterFactory in > schema.xml) > > Queries for

Wildcard query with uppercase characters gets no result in edismax handler

Hi, I'm using an edismax handler All fields and queries are lower case (LowerCaseFilterFactory in schema.xml) Queries for television, Television and televisio* lead to results. But Televisio* has no result. Is this a bug, a feature or a misconfiguration? Kind Regards Matthias

RE: Wildcard Query

JRJ -Original Message- From: Aaron Bains [mailto:aaronba...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:00 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Wildcard Query I solved the problem by setting multiValued=false On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Aaron wrote: > It seems to work c

Re: Wildcard Query

n't understand why... >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Aaron wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> The keywords field type is "text_en_splitting" >>> >>> My query is as follows:    q=keywords:(symantec AND corporation)

Re: Wildcard Query

Aaron wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> The keywords field type is "text_en_splitting" >> >> My query is as follows:q=keywords:(symantec AND corporation) >> Result: Documents are returned as normal >> >> >> My wildcard query is as follows:

Re: Wildcard Query

llows:q=keywords:(symantec AND corporation) > Result: Documents are returned as normal > > > My wildcard query is as follows: q=keywords:(symante* AND corporation) > Result: Wildcard functions correctly, and documents are returned > > > When I try a wildcard on

Wildcard Query

Hello, The keywords field type is "text_en_splitting" My query is as follows:q=keywords:(symantec AND corporation) Result: Documents are returned as normal My wildcard query is as follows: q=keywords:(symante* AND corporation) Result: Wildcard functions correctly, and doc

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

>>> Regards, >>>> Christopher >>>> >>>> 8 jul 2011 kl. 16.57 skrev Briggs Thompson: >>>> >>>>> Hey Chris, >>>>> Removing the ORs in each query might help narrow down the problem, but I >>>>> sug

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

; Removing the ORs in each query might help narrow down the problem, but I >>>> suggest you run this through the query analyzer in order to see where it is >>>> dropping out. It is a great tool for troubleshooting issues like these. >>>> >>>> I see a

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

ere it is >>> dropping out. It is a great tool for troubleshooting issues like these. >>> >>> I see a few things here. >>> >>> - for leading wildcard queries, you should include the >>> reverseWildcardFilterFactory. Check out the documentation

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

  >> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.ReversedWildcardFilterFactory >>   - Your result might get dropped out because you are trying to do wildcard >>   searches on a stemmed field. Wildcard searches on a stemmed field is >>   counter-intuitive beca

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

dropped out because you are trying to do wildcard > searches on a stemmed field. Wildcard searches on a stemmed field is > counter-intuitive because if you index "computers", it may stem to "comput", > in which wildcard query of "computer*" would not match

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

. Wildcard searches on a stemmed field is counter-intuitive because if you index "computers", it may stem to "comput", in which wildcard query of "computer*" would not match. - If you want to support stemming and wildcard searches, I suggest creating a copy

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

Hi Briggs. Thanks for taking the time. I have the query nearly working now, currently this is how it looks when it matches on the title "Super Technocrane 30" and others with similar names: INFO: [] webapp=/solr path=/select/ params={qf=title^40.0&hl.fl=title&wt=json&rows=10&fl=*,score&start=0&

Re: Need help with troublesome wildcard query

Hello Christopher, Can you provide the exact query sent to Solr for the one word query and also the two word query? The field type definition for your title field would be useful too. >From what I understand, Solr should be able to handle your use case. I am guessing it is a problem with how the

Need help with troublesome wildcard query

Hi, I'm running Solr 3.2 with edismax under Tomcat 6 via Drupal. I'm having some problems writing a query that matches a specific field on several words. I have implemented an AJAX search that basically takes whatever is in a form field and attempts to match documents. I'm not having much luck

Re: Conflict in wildcard query and spellchecker in solr search

how can I lowercase query outside of Solr before sending a query? - Thanks & Regards Romi -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Conflict-in-wildcard-query-and-spellchecker-in-solr-search-tp3095198p3095345.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archiv

Re: Conflict in wildcard query and spellchecker in solr search

"0" splitOnCaseChange="1"/> > > protected="protwords.txt"/> > > > > > * > > I am using this fieldtype and applied these filters. for wildcard searches > do i need to include some more filters or w

Re: Conflict in wildcard query and spellchecker in solr search

need to include some more filters or what other configurations are needed - Thanks & Regards Romi -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Conflict-in-wildcard-query-and-spellchecker-in-solr-search-tp3095198p3095290.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list arc

Re: Conflict in wildcard query and spellchecker in solr search

Wildcard queries are not analyzed. Lowercase your query beforehand. On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:08:48 Romi wrote: > Using solr search when i search for rin* it run wildcard query and i get > the result for ring but when i search for Rin* it run spellchecker and > then gives the result

Conflict in wildcard query and spellchecker in solr search

Using solr search when i search for rin* it run wildcard query and i get the result for ring but when i search for Rin* it run spellchecker and then gives the result for ring. why so ?? please explain - Thanks & Regards Romi -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble

Re: [Wildcard query] Weird behaviour

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Tanguy Moal wrote: > Thank you very much Robert for replying that fast and accurately. > > I have effectively an other idea in mind to provide similar > suggestions less expansively, I was balancing between the work around > and the report issue options. > > I don't

Re: [Wildcard query] Weird behaviour

Thank you very much Robert for replying that fast and accurately. I have effectively an other idea in mind to provide similar suggestions less expansively, I was balancing between the work around and the report issue options. I don't regret it since you came with a possible fix. I'll give it a tr

Re: [Wildcard query] Weird behaviour

Actually, i took a look at the code again, the queries you mentioned: "I send queries to that field in the form (*term1*term2*)" I think the patch will not fix your problem... The only way i know you can fix this would be to upgrade to lucene/solr trunk, where wildcard comparison is linear to the

Re: [Wildcard query] Weird behaviour

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Tanguy Moal wrote: > However suddenly CPU usage simply doubles, and sometimes eventually > start using all 16 cores of the server, whereas the number of handled > request is pretty stable, and even starts decreasing because of > degraded user experience due to drama

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

: In the default schema.xml, only text_rev fieldType has : ReversedWildcardFilterFactory. The query below (manu_exact:*in) returns : two documents (whose manu_exact is Belkin). : : Am i missing something? : : http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=manu_exact%3A*in&version=2.2&start=0&rows=10&in

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

> that's how SolrQueryParser works at the moment, yes. In the default schema.xml, only text_rev fieldType has ReversedWildcardFilterFactory. The query below (manu_exact:*in) returns two documents (whose manu_exact is Belkin). Am i missing something? http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=manu_e

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

: Does this mean leading * operator can only be used with fields whose : fieldType definition has ReversedWildcardFilterFactory at index time? that's how SolrQueryParser works at the moment, yes. -Hoss

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

> that's not correct  what SolrQueryParser does is > check which field > types use ReversedWildcardFilterFactory at indexing time, > and then when > parsing queries, it allows fields that use field types to > be parsed with a leading wildcard. Does this mean leading * operator can only be u

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

: > I'm going to guess that is what you meant, that the very : > presence of the : > filter in the schema, whether it is used or not, allows you : > to do wildcard : > searches. : : Exactly. that's not correct what SolrQueryParser does is check which field types use ReversedWildcardFilterFa

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-force-wildcard-query-not-to-ignore-word-endings-tp936322p938097.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

> I will try to remove SnowballPorterFilterFactory (is it > right?) and then restart solr + reindex Exactly. This will solve your problem. However remember that wildcard, prefix searches (*) are not analyzed. For example HAN* won't return anything.

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

to remove SnowballPorterFilterFactory (is it right?) and then restart solr + reindex -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-force-wildcard-query-not-to-ignore-word-endings-tp936322p936584.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

> I'm not sure weather it can be solved in solr > configuration itself > (for example with query analyzer for the text field, or > with index > analyzer). Do you have StemFilterFactory in your field type? Remove it from query analyzer for the text field. Re-start core + re-index.

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

text: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-force-wildcard-query-not-to-ignore-word-endings-tp936322p936506.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

> I have one problem with querying solr. I indexed person > with 2 fields: > > * firstname - Hans > * lastname - Mustermann > > and I have copy field 'text' where these fields are copied. > 'text' field is > used during query. > > Now, when I search: > > han* > > I do have Hans Musterma

How to force wildcard query not to ignore word endings

. Thanks in advance, Oleg -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-force-wildcard-query-not-to-ignore-word-endings-tp936322p936322.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

> I'm going to guess that is what you meant, that the very > presence of the > filter in the schema, whether it is used or not, allows you > to do wildcard > searches. Exactly. > Is that documented anywhere and I just missed it?  I'm > sure it is. I knew it from source code of SolrQueryParser. p

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

-- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Leading-Wildcard-query-strangeness-tp931809p933600.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Leading Wildcard query strangeness

> We've got an app in production that executes leading > wildcard queries just > fine. > > >   0 >   1298 >   >     title:*news >   > > > > The same app in dev/qa has undergone a major > schema/solrconfig overhaul, > including introducing multiple cores, and leading wildcard > queries no lon

Leading Wildcard query strangeness

ssfully executing Wildcard queries. Is there another way without QueryParser.setAllowLeadingWildcard(true)? (Running 1.4 in all environments, although "newer" versions of 1.4 (downloaded more recently) in dev and qa.) Thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

Just for the records - this works like a charm: .../select?q=*potter*&qt=dismax − 0 93 − *potter* dismax − ... L'année où on a découvert «Harry Potter» au cinéma ... explicit 0.01 all_text_de^0.5 all_text_en^0.5

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 5:23:48 PM > Subject: Re: leading and trailing wildcard query > > > > > The guilt trick is not the best thing to try on public mailing lists. :) > > > > Point taken, although not my intention. I guess I ha

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

7;ve scoured the archives and JIRA , but the answer to my question is just not clear to me. With all the new Solr 1.4 features, is there any way to do a leading and trailing wildcard query on an *untokenized* field? e.g. q=myfield:*abc* would return a doc with myfield=xxxabcxxx Yes, I know how

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

> Not sure what version it was supported from, but we're on 1.3. Really!? Great answer! Thanks! -- A. Steven Anderson

RE: leading and trailing wildcard query

Not sure what version it was supported from, but we're on 1.3. bern -Original Message- From: A. Steven Anderson [mailto:a.steven.ander...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2009 10:25 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: leading and trailing wildcard query > Hi

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

> Note that N-grams are limited to specific string lengths. I presume that > you need to search for arbitrary strings, not just three-letter ones. > Understood, but that is a limitation that we can live with. Thanks! -- A. Steven Anderson

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

> Ah. With that restriction, it is impossible. > If it is OK to pay Lucid to make a one-line change, you might be able to do > it. Otherwise, get ready to spend a lot of money for a search engine. > Well, now that Lucid is getting In-Q-Tel $$$, they will soon learn that officially releases are all

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: leading and trailing wildcard query Thanks for the solution, but could you elaborate on how it would find something like *abc* in a field that contains abc. Steve On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Bernadette Houghton < bernadette.hough...@deakin.edu.au>

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

> Hi Steve, a query such as *abc* would need the NGramFilterFactor, hence the > doubleedgytext, and would be retrievable by a query such as contains:abc. > Note that you can set the max and minimum size of strings that get indexed. > Excellent! Just to clarify though, NGramFilterFactor is a Solr

Re: leading and trailing wildcard query

Ah. With that restriction, it is impossible. If it is OK to pay Lucid to make a one-line change, you might be able to do it. Otherwise, get ready to spend a lot of money for a search engine. wunder On Nov 5, 2009, at 3:18 PM, A. Steven Anderson wrote: Unfortunately, we can only use offici

RE: leading and trailing wildcard query

[mailto:a.steven.ander...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2009 10:08 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: leading and trailing wildcard query Thanks for the solution, but could you elaborate on how it would find something like *abc* in a field that contains abc. Steve On Thu, Nov 5

  1   2   >