Hi Aman, I’ve created <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10423> for this problem.
-- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Mar 31, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Aman Deep Singh <amandeep.coo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Rich, > Query creation is correct only thing what causing the problem is that > Boolean + query while building the lucene query which causing all tokens to > be matched in the document (equivalent of mm=100%) even though I use mm=1 > it was using BOOLEAN + query as > normal query one plus one abc > Lucene query - > +(((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one +nameShingle:one abc)) > ((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one abc)) ((+nameShingle:one plus > one +nameShingle:one abc)) (nameShingle:one plus one abc)) > > Now since my doc contains only one plus one thus -- > one plus ,plus one, one plus one > thus due to Boolean + it was not matching. > Thanks, > Aman Deep Singh > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:41 PM Rick Leir <rl...@leirtech.com> wrote: > >> Hi Aman >> Did you try the Admin Analysis tool? It will show you which filters are >> effective at index and query time. It will help you understand why you are >> not getting a mach. >> Cheers -- Rick >> >> On March 31, 2017 2:36:33 AM EDT, Aman Deep Singh < >> amandeep.coo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I was trying to use the shingle filter but it was not creating the >>> query as >>> desirable. >>> >>> my schema is >>> <fieldType name="cust_shingle" class="solr.TextField" >>> positionIncrementGap= >>> "100"> <analyzer> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> >>> <filter >>> class="solr.ShingleFilterFactory" outputUnigrams="false" >>> maxShingleSize="4" >>> /> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> </analyzer> >>> </fieldType> >>> <field name="nameShingle" type="cust_shingle" indexed="true" >>> stored="true"/> >>> >>> my solr query is >>> >> http://localhost:8983/solr/productCollection/select?defType=edismax&debugQuery=true&q=one%20plus%20one%20four&qf=nameShingle&; >>> *sow=false*&wt=xml >>> >>> and it was creating the parsed query as >>> <str name="parsedquery"> >>> (+(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one >>> +nameShingle:one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one plus >>> +nameShingle:plus one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one >>> plus >>> one +nameShingle:one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery((nameShingle:one plus >>> one >>> four)))~1)/no_coord >>> </str> >>> <str name="parsedquery_toString"> >>> *+((((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one +nameShingle:one >>> four)) >>> ((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one four)) ((+nameShingle:one >>> plus one +nameShingle:one four)) (nameShingle:one plus one four))~1)* >>> </str> >>> >>> >>> So ideally token creations is perfect but in the query it is using >>> boolean + operator which is causing the problem as if i have a document >>> with name as >>> "one plus one" ,according to the shingles it has to matched as its >>> token >>> will be ("one plus","one plus one","plus one") . >>> I have tried using the q.op and played around the mm also but nothing >>> is >>> giving me the correct response. >>> Any idea how i can fetch that document even if the document is missing >>> any >>> token. >>> >>> My expected response will be getting the document >>> "one plus one" even the user query has any additional term like "one >>> plus >>> one two" and so on. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Aman Deep Singh >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
