Frankly, this puzzles me. It *looks* like it should be OK. One warning, the analysis page sometimes is a bit misleading, so beware of that.
But the output of your queries make it look like the query is parsing as you expect, which leaves the question of whether your index contains what you think it does. You might get a copy of Luke, which allows you to examine what's actually in your index instead of what you think is in there. Sometimes there are surprises here! I didn't mean to re-index your whole corpus, I was thinking that you could just index a few documents in a test index so you have something small to look at. Sorry I can't spot what's happening right away. Good luck! Erick On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Jerome Renard <jerome.ren...@gmail.com>wrote: > Erick, > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Erick Erickson > <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hmmm, I don't see any screen shots. Several things: >> 1> If your stopword file has comments, I'm not sure what the effect would >> be. >> > > Ha, I thought comments were supported in stopwords.txt > > >> 2> Something's not right here, or I'm being fooled again. Your withresults >> xml has this line: >> <str name="parsedquery">+DisjunctionMaxQuery((meta_text:"ecol d >> ingenieur")~0.01) ()</str> >> and your noresults has this line: >> <str name="parsedquery">+DisjunctionMaxQuery((meta_text:"academi >> charpenti")~0.01) DisjunctionMaxQuery((meta_text:"academi >> charpenti"~100)~0.01)</str> >> >> the empty () in the first one often means you're NOT going to your >> configured dismax parser in solrconfig.xml. Yet that doesn't square with >> your custom qt, so I'm puzzled. >> >> Could we see your raw query string on the way in? It's almost as if you >> defined qt in one and defType in the other, which are not equivalent. >> > > You are right I fixed this problem (my bad). > > 3> It may take 12 hours to index, but you could experiment with a smaller >> subset. You say you know that the noresults one should return documents, >> what proof do >> you have? If there's a single document that you know should match this, >> just >> index it and a few others and you should be able to make many runs until >> you >> get >> to the bottom of this... >> >> > I could but I always thought I had to fully re-index after updating > schema.xml. If > I update only few documents will that take the changes into account without > breaking > the rest ? > > >> And obviously your stemming is happening on the query, are you sure it's >> happening at index time too? >> >> > Since you did not get the screenshots you will find attached the full > output of the analysis > for a phrase that works and for another that does not. > > Thanks for your support > > Best Regards, > > -- > Jérôme >
