I think a spellchecker based on your index has clear advantages. You can spellcheck words specific to your domain which may not be available in an outside dictionary. You can always dump the list from wordnet to get a starter english dictionary.
But then it also means that misspelled words from your domain become the suggested correct word. Hmmm ... you'll need to have a way to prune out such words. Even then, your own domain based dictionary is a total go. On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > In general, the benefit of the built-in Solr spellcheck is that it can use > a dictionary based on your actual index. > > If you want to use some external API, you certainly can, in your actual > client app -- but it doesn't really need to involve Solr at all anymore, > does it? Is there any benefit I'm not thinking of to doing that on the solr > side, instead of just in your client app? > > I think Yahoo (and maybe Microsoft?) have similar APIs with more generous > ToSs, but I haven't looked in a while. > > > Xin Li wrote: > >> Oops, never mind. Just read Google API policy. 1000 queries per day limit >> & for non-commercial use only. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xin Li Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:43 PM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Spell checking question from a Solr novice >> >> Hi, >> I am looking for a quick solution to improve a search engine's spell >> checking performance. I was wondering if anyone tried to integrate Google >> SpellCheck API with Solr search engine (if possible). Google spellcheck came >> to my mind because of two reasons. First, it is costly to clean up the data >> to be used as spell check baseline. Secondly, google probably has the most >> complete set of misspelled search terms. That's why I would like to know if >> it is a feasible way to go. >> >> Thanks, >> Xin >> This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be >> CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM >> DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only for the use of the >> addressee(s) named herein. If you are not an intended recipient, please >> contact the sender immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the >> message completely from your computer system. >> >> Not Intended as a Substitute for a Writing: Notwithstanding the Uniform >> Electronic Transaction Act or any other law of similar effect, absent an >> express statement to the contrary, this e-mail message, its contents, and >> any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance >> to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind this sender, >> barnesandnoble.com llc, barnesandnoble.com inc. or any other person or >> entity. >> This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be >> CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM >> DISCLOSURE, and (b) is intended only for the use of the >> addressee(s) named herein. If you are not an intended recipient, please >> contact the sender immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the >> message completely from your computer system. >> >> Not Intended as a Substitute for a Writing: Notwithstanding the Uniform >> Electronic Transaction Act or any other law of similar effect, absent an >> express statement to the contrary, this e-mail message, its contents, and >> any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance >> to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind this sender, >> barnesandnoble.com llc, barnesandnoble.com inc. or any other person or >> entity. >> >> >
