>On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:37 AM, David Santamauro wrote:
>>>> i need to search something as
>>>> myText:billion AND guarantee
>>>>
>>>> i need to be extracted only the record where the words exists in the same
>>>> value (in this case only the first record) because in the 2nd record the
>>>> two words are in different values
>>>>
>>>> is it possible?
>>>
>>> It's not possible with a purely boolean query like this, but it is possible
>>> with a sloppy phrase query where the position increment gap (see example
>>> schema.xml) is greater than the slop factor.
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think what is needed here is the concept of SAME, i.e., myText:billion
>> SAME guarantee. I know a few full-text engines that can handle this operator
>> one way or another. And without it, I don't quick understand the usefulness
>> of multiValue fields.
>
> Yeah, multi-valued fields are a bit awkward to grasp fully in Lucene.
> Especially in this context where it's a full-text field. Basically as far as
> indexing goes, there's no such thing as a "multi-valued" field. An indexed
> field gets split into terms, and terms have positional information attached
> to them (thus a position increment gap can be used to but a big virtual gap
> between the last term of one field instance and the first term of the next
> one). A multi-valued field gets stored (if it is set to be stored, that is)
> as separate strings, and is retrievable as the separate values.
>
> Multi-valued fields are handy for facets where, say, a product can have
> multiple categories associated with it. In this case it's a bit clearer.
> It's the full-text multi-valued fields that seem a bit strange.
>
> Erik
>
>
> OK, it seems it is the multi-dimensional aspect that is missing
>
> field[0]: A B C D
> field[1]: B D
>
> ...and the concept of field array would need to be introduced (probably at
> the lucene level).
>
> Do you know if there has been any serious thought given to this, i.e., the
> possibility of introducing a new SAME operator or is this a corner-case not >
> > worthy?
>
> thanks
> David
>
thanks for all the replies
maybe this could be an interesting request for the developers
bye
