Could someone point me to where in the Solr code the Analyzer is applied to a
query parser field?
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:13:25 AM
Subject: Re: Possible bug in copyField
On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:41 PM, jason rutherglen wrote:
> Ok... Looks like its related to using SpanQueries (I hacked on the
> XML query code). I remember a discussion about this issue. Not
> something Solr specifically supports so my apologies. However if
> anyone knows about this feel free to post something to the Lucene
> User list. I will probably manually analyze the terms of the span
> query and create a stemmed span query. Is that a good idea?
Well, query terms need to match how they were indexed :) So it's a
good idea in that respect. Stemming is chock full of fun (or
frustrating) issues like this and I don't have any easy advice, but
certainly if you're stemming terms during indexing you'll need to
stem them for queries. Unless you index the original terms in a
parallel field or in the same positions as the stemmed ones, where
you can play with searching with or without stemming on the query side.
Erik
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: jason rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:33:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible bug in copyField
>
> On 8/28/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : By looking at what is stored. Has this worked for others?
>>
>> the "stored" value of a field is allways going to be the pre-
>> analyzed text
>> -- that's why the stored values in your "text" fields still have
>> upper
>> case characters and stop words.
>
> And since the stored values will always be the same, it normally
> doesn't make sense to store the targets of copyField if the sources
> are also stored.
>
> Youy can test if stemming was done by searching for a different tense
> of a word in the field.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
>
>
