Hi Shawn, I think the position is the issue, but how do I fix it? Is something wrong with my index analyzer or just my query is not right? I need to do phrase query, order is important here.
I tried “KKS KSA”~1 in the query, it worked. However, if I do "KKS KSA SAR”~1, it didn’t work, I had to do "KKS KSA SAR”~2. Is phrase slop essential here. I used to with Solr 3.5, no phrase slop is needed. Thanks, Chuming On Nov 16, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 11/16/2017 7:38 AM, Chuming Chen wrote: >> Referencing the first image in the message, showing the analysis tab. This >> reply is plain text, so that image cannot be included. > > In your query, you have two terms as a phrase - kks and ksa. These match > terms in the index, but the reason that the *query* doesn't match is that the > relative *positions* don't match. In your query, the terms are at position 1 > and 2, but in the *index*, all the terms are at position 1. Because the > query has quotes, it is a phrase query, which means that positions matter. > With the query terms at position 1 and position 2, the indexed terms would > have to be at say position 5 and position 6 -- next to each other and in that > specific order -- in order to have a match. > > If you sent "KKS KSA"~1 instead, the query would have a phrase slop of 1, > which would mean that the relative positions can differ by one and still > match. Or if you were to remove the quotes so that it were not a phrase > query, it might match. All of this of course depends on what your default > field is. > > Also, note that the query analysis page does not know that quotes are special > -- the query parser is not used. Running the analysis with the quotes > happens to work out correctly in this particular case because the standard > tokenizer in this field type removes punctuation, but on a less aggressive > analysis chain, the quotes that are counted as special by the query parser > (and therefore are not even sent to analysis) might actually be included in > the terms on the analysis page. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
