Hey,
Thanks so much for your outstanding response. I have been buisy for
a few days so have not had a chance to try it out. I have now tried to
install trunc of solr and when i run 'ant test' I encounter the following:
[junit] Testsuite:
org.apache.lucene.facet.taxonomy.directory.TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader
[junit] Testcase:
testRefreshReadRecreatedTaxonomy(org.apache.lucene.facet.taxonomy.directory.TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader):
FAILED
[junit] Expected InconsistentTaxonomyException
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected
InconsistentTaxonomyException
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.facet.taxonomy.directory.TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader.doTestReadRecreatedTaxono(TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader.java:168)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.facet.taxonomy.directory.TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader.testRefreshReadRecreatedTaxonomy(TestDirectoryTaxonomyReader.java:130)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$3$1.evaluate(LuceneTestCase.java:529)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCaseRunner.java:165)
[junit] at
org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCaseRunner.java:57)
Should I ignore this (and other failed tests) and continue anyway?
Cheers,
David
On 17/01/2012 5:32 AM, Dyer, James wrote:
David,
The spellchecker normally won't give suggestions for any term in your index. So even if
"wever" is misspelled in context, if it exists in the index the spell checker
will not try correcting it. There are 3 workarounds:
1. Use the patch included with SOLR-2585 (this is for Trunk/4.x only). See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2585
2. try "onlyMorePopular=true" in your request.
(http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#spellcheck.onlyMorePopular). But see
the September 2, 2011 comment in SOLR-2585 about why this might not do what you'd hope it
would.
3. If you're building your index on a<copyField />, you can add a stopword
filter that filters out all of the misspelt or rare words from the field that the
dictionary is based. This could be an arduous task, and it may or may not work well
for your data.
As for your second question, I take it you're using (e)dismax with multiple fields in "qf",
right? The only way I know to handle this is to create a<copyfield> that combines all of the
fields you search across. Use this combined field to base your dictionary. Also, specifying
"spellcheck.maxCollationTries" with a non-zero value will weed out the nonsense word
combinations that are likely to occur when doing this, ensuring that any collations provided will indeed
yield hits. The downside to doing this, of course, is it will make your first problem more acute in that
there will be even more terms in your index that the spellchecker will ignore entirely, even if they're
mispelled in context. Once again, SOLR-2585 is designed to tackle this problem but it is still in its
early stages, and thus far it is Trunk-only.
You might also be interested in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2993 . Although
this is unrelated to your two questions, the patch on this issue introduces a new
"ConjunctionSolrSpellChecker" which theoretically could be enhanced to do exactly
what you want. That is, you could (theoretically) create separate dictionaries for each of
the fields you're searching and let the CSSC combine the results& generate collations,
etc.
James Dyer
E-Commerce Systems
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-----Original Message-----
From: David Radunz [mailto:da...@boxen.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:42 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Improving Solr Spell Checker Results
Hey,
Firstly I would like to thank you all for creating such a great
searching platform. What I was wondering is whether it is possible to:
1. Have the spell checker take into account multiple words. For example
if I search for "Sigourney Wever" it doesn't flag as a spelling issue as
'wever' is a correctly spelled word. And if I searched for "Sigourney
Wevr" the suggestion is "Sigourney Wever". Of course the correct
spelling is: Sigourney Weaver
2. Have the spell checker return corrections only for dictionary items
added on the field being searched. i.e. Searching for an actor would
only use the dictionary fields from the actor. This makes sense on many
levels, as when you are field searching its useless to get a correction
from another field as no values would match in any case.
Hopefully someone can help!
Thanks in advance,
David
