The schema browswer is a section in the admin panel of Solr. I don't know if
I'm looking at original value, I think there are only filtered values in
there.

Thank you for the reply.

Bye

L.M.


2008/9/22 Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi,
>
> Are you sure you are not looking at the original field values? (what is the
> schema browser are you referring to?)
> Yes, tokenizer + filters are applied in the order they are defined in, so
> the order is important.  For example, you typically want to lower-case
> tokens before removing stop words because, presumably, your stop words are
> all lower-case.
>
> Otis
> --
> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Luca Molteni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:43:43 AM
> > Subject: Standard analyzer and acronyms
> >
> > Hello, list.
> >
> > I found some strange results using the standard analyzer.
> >
> > I've put it in both query and index time,  but when I use the schema
> browser
> > to see the commond values for field, i find:
> >
> > spa1558 s.p.a. 833
> > Which is pretty strange, since I've used the analyzer to remove the dots
> > from the acronyms.
> >
> > My hypothesis is that the StandardAnalyzer remove dots from only the
> > uppercase acronyms.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this to me?
> >
> > Regarding this, I was wondering if the filter and the tokenizers are
> applied
> > sequencely using the order in which they are written.
> > For example, if I use the StandardAnalyzer, the StopFilter for the words
> > "IBM" and the whitespace tokenizer
> >
> > "I.B.M Company"
> >
> > 1. The standard removes the dot
> >
> > "IBM Company"
> >
> > 2. The stopfilter removes the word "IBM"
> >
> > "Company"
> >
> > 3. The analyzer returns only one token
> >
> > "Company".
> >
> > I know, this is not a great example, but I think that not all the
> analyzer
> > are commutative, then there should be an order in which they are applied.
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > L.M.
>
>

Reply via email to