On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : That's why I was wondering how Dismax breaks it all apart. It makes
> sense...I : suppose what I'd like to have is a way to tell dismax which
> fields NOT to : tokenize the input for. For these fields, it would pass the
> full q instead of : each part of it. Does this make sense? would it be useful
> at all?
>
> the *goal* makes sense, but the implementation would be ... problematic.
>
> you have to remember the DisMax parser's whole way of working is to make
> each "chunk" of input match against any qf field, and find the highest
> scoring field for each chunk, with this input...
>
> q = some phase & qf = a b c
>
> ...you get...
>
> ( (a:some | b:some | c:some) (a:phrase | b:phrase | c:phrase) )
>
> ...even if dismax could tell that "c" was a field that should only support
> exact matches,
thanks Hoss,
it would by a configuration option.
> how would it fit c:"some phrase" into that structure?
does this make sense?
( (a:some | b:some ) (a:phrase | b:phrase) ( c:"some phrase") )
> I've already kinda forgotten how this thread started ...
trying to get *exact* matches to always score higher using dismax - keeping in
mind that I have multiple exact fields, with different boosts...
> but would it make
> sense to just use your "exact" fields in the pf, and have inexact versions
> of them in the qf? then docs that match your input exactly should score
> at the top, but less exact matches will also still match.
aha! right, i think that makes sense...i obviously haven't got my head properly
around all the different functionality of dismax.
I will try it when I'm back @ work... right now, i seem to have solved the
problem by using shingles -the fields are artists, song & albumtitles ,so high
matching on shingles is quite approximate to exact matching - except that I had
to remove stopwords, so that impacts on performance.
Thanks again :)
B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?
Don't know. Don't care.
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
