: I got a fundamental understanding question that Mike's posting did not
: answer:
: You say "q=apple iPhone & qf=title^5 manufacturer & mm=100%" is correct.
: That means:
: title: "iphone" -> matches "iphone" but not "apple"
: manufacturer: "apple" -> matches "apple" but not "iphone"
: According to the query, at least 100% of the query-terms matched the doc.
: So far, so good.
:
: If I would define "apple" as a stopword for title, what would be the
: problem? What is the difference for the handler? In this example, there
: would never be a hit on "apple", regardless whether I say it's a stopword or
: not.
there is no problem, there may in fact be a "hit" on the word "apple"
in the "manufacturer" field -- that is compleltey irelevant to wether
"apple" is a stopword in the title field. what is relevant is:
* the word "iphone" is valid in both the title and manufacturer fields
- therefore we have a clause that will match "iphone" in either field
* the word "apple" is valid in the manufacturer field
- therefore we have a clause that will match "apple" in the
manufacturer field
* mm=100% and we have 2 clauses
- therefore a minimum of 2 clauses must match
... therefore we must have a match on "apple" in the manufacture field in
addition to matching "iphone" on one of hte other fields.
: I am not sure, whether this answers my question.
: Let me try to explain what I've understood: title says "apple" is invalid,
: which means that "apple" is assumed to be invalid for the whole query, and
: so the query can't match 100%, although it's valid for "manufacturer". Am I
: correct?
No ... not at all -- as i've said before: you have to *try* it and look at
the debug information. if it's not clear from a textual description of
one example, then it won't be any clearer from textual descriptions of 100
examples -- no amount of verbal explanation are going to be as useful as
looking at the query structure produced for multiple examples (with and
w/o stopwords, with and with/out ngrams, etc...)
-Hoss
