Hi were you successful in trying SOLR -1604 to allow wild card queries in phrases ?
Also does this plugin allow us to use proximity with wild card * "solr mail*"~10 * If this the right approach to go ahead to support these functionalities? thanks Mark On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Frederico Azeiteiro < frederico.azeite...@cision.com> wrote: > Thanks for you ideia. > > At this point I'm logging each query time. My ideia is to divide my > queries into "normal queries" and "heavy queries". I have some heavy > queries with 1 minute or 2mintes to get results. But they have for > instance (*word1* AND *word2* AND word3*). I guess that this will be > always slower (could be a little faster with > "ReversedWildcardFilterFactory") but they never be ready in a few > seconds. For now, I just increased the timeout for those :) (using > solrnet). > > My priority at the moment is the queries phrases like "word1* word2* > word3". After this is working, I'll try to optimize the "heavy queries" > > Frederico > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] > Sent: quarta-feira, 4 de Agosto de 2010 01:41 > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: wildcard and proximity searches > > Frederico Azeiteiro wrote: > > > >>> But it is unusual to use both leading and trailing * operator. Why > are > >>> > > you doing this? > > > > Yes I know, but I have a few queries that need this. I'll try the > > "ReversedWildcardFilterFactory". > > > > > > > > ReverseWildcardFilter will help leading wildcard, but will not help > trying to use a query with BOTH leading and trailing wildcard. it'll > still be slow. Solr/lucene isn't good at that; I didn't even know Solr > would do it at all in fact. > > If you really needed to do that, the way to play to solr/lucene's way of > > doing things, would be to have a field where you actually index each > _character_ as a seperate token. Then leading and trailing wildcard > search is basically reduced to a "phrase search", but where the words > are actually characters. But then you're going to get an index where > pretty much every token belongs to every document, which Solr isn't that > > great at either, but then you can apply "commongram" stuff on top to > help that out a lot too. Not quite sure what the end result will be, > I've never tried it. I'd only use that weird special "char as token" > field for queries that actually required leading and trailing wildcards. > > Figuring out how to set up your analyzers, and what (if anything) you're > > going to have to do client-app-side to transform the user's query into > something that'll end up searching like a "phrase search where each > 'word' is a character.... is left as an exersize for the reader. :) > > Jonathan > -- Nipen Mark
