Mary Jo, Honestly half the time I run into this problem, I end up creating a QParserPlugin because I need to do something specific. With a QParserPlugin I can run whatever analysis, slicing and dicing of the query string to manually construct whatever I need to
http://www.supermind.org/blog/1134/custom-solr-queryparsers-for-fun-and-profit One thing I often do is repeat the functionality of Elasticsearch's match query. Elasticsearch's match query does the following: - Analyze the query string using the field's query-time analyzer - Create an OR query with the tokens that come out of the analysis You can look at the field query parser as something of a starting point for this. I usually do this in the context of a boost query, not as the main edismax query. If I have time, this is something I've been meaning to open source. Best -Doug On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM Joe Lawson <jlaw...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > I'm sorry I wasn't more specific, I meant we were hijacking the thread with > the question, "Anyone used a different method of > handling multi-term synonyms that isn't as global?" as the original thread > was about getting synonym_edismax running. > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:24 PM, MaryJo Sminkey <mjsmin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > MaryJo you might want to start a new thread, I think we kinda hijacked > > this > > > one. Also if you are interested in tuning queries check out > > > http://splainer.io/ and https://www.quepid.com which are interactive > > tools > > > (both of which my company makes) to tune for search relevancy. > > > > > > > > > Okay I changed the subject. But I don't need a tuning tool, I already > know > > WHY I'm not getting the results I need, the problem is how to fix it or > get > > around what the plugin is doing. Which is why I was inquiring if people > > have had success with something other than this particularly plugin for > > more advanced queries that it messes around with. It seems to do a good > job > > if you aren't doing anything particularly complicated with your search > > logic, but I don't see a good way to solve the issue I'm having, and a > > tuning tool isn't really going to help with that. We were pretty happy > with > > our search relevancy for the most part *other* than the problem with the > > multi-term synonyms not working reliably but I definitely can't lose > > relevancy that we had just to get those working. > > > > In reviewing your tools previously, the problem as I recall is that they > > rely on querying Solr directly, while our searches go through multiple > > levels of an application which includes a lot of additional logic in > terms > > of what the data that gets sent to Solr are, so they just aren't going to > > be much use for us. It was easier for me to just write my own tool that > > essentially does the same kind of thing, but with my application logic > > built in. > > > > Mary Jo > > >
