thank you for this information.
> Subject: Re: Implement Custom Soundex > From: p...@hoplahup.net > Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:58:49 +0200 > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Momo, > > if you have the conversion text to tokens then all you need to do is > implement a custom analyzer, deploy it inside the solr webapp, then plug it > into the schema. > > Is that the part that is hard? > I thought the wiki was helpful there but may some other issue is holding you. > One zoology of such analyzers is at: > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters > > If that is the issue, here's a one sentence explanation: if you have a new > analyzer you want to declare a new field-type and field with that analyzer; > queries should be going through it as well as indexing. Matching word A with > word B will then happen if word A and B are converted by your analyzer to the > same token (this is how cat and cats match when using the PorterStemmer for > example). > > paul > > > Le 16 oct. 2011 à 14:09, Momo..Lelo .. a écrit : > > > > > Dear Gora, > > > > Thank you for the quick response. > > > > Actually I > > need to do Soundex for Arabic language. The code is already done in Java. > > But I > > couldn't understand how can I implement it as Solr filter. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > >> From: g...@mimirtech.com > >> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:19:48 +0530 > >> Subject: Re: Implement Custom Soundex > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> > >> 2011/10/16 Momo..Lelo .. <galag...@hotmail.com>: > >>> > >>> Dear, > >>> > >>> Does anyone there has an experience of developing a custom Soundex. > >>> > >>> If you have an experience doing this and can offer some help and share > >>> experience I'd really appreciate it. > >> > >> I presume that this is in the context of Solr, and spell-checking. > >> We did this as an exercise for Indian-language words transliterated > >> into English, hooking into the open-source spell-checking library, > >> aspell, which provided us with a soundex-like algorithm (the actual > >> algorithm is quite different, but works better than soundex, at > >> least for our use case). We were quite satisfied with the results, > >> though unfortunately this never went into production. > >> > >> Would be glad to help, though I am going to be really busy the > >> next few days. Please do provide us with more details on your > >> requirements. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Gora > > >
