Thank's Jack. It is exactly this. My mistake. Thank's * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * *"E conhecereis a verdade, e a verdade vos libertará." (João 8:32)*
*andre.maldonado*@gmail.com <andre.maldon...@gmail.com> (11) 9112-4227 <http://www.orkut.com.br/Main#Profile?uid=2397703412199036664> <http://www.orkut.com.br/Main#Profile?uid=2397703412199036664> <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000659376883> <http://twitter.com/andremaldonado> <http://www.delicious.com/andre.maldonado> <https://profiles.google.com/105605760943701739931> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andr%C3%A9-maldonado/23/234/4b3> <http://www.youtube.com/andremaldonado> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jack Krupansky <j...@basetechnology.com>wrote: > First, it appears that you are using the "dismax" query parser, not the > extended dismax ("edismax") query parser. > > My hunch is that some of those fields may be non-tokenized "string" fields > in which one or more of your search keywords do appear but not as the full > string value or maybe with a different case than in the query. But when you > do a copyField from a string field to a tokenized "text" field those > strings > would be broken up into individual keywords and probably lowercased. So, it > will be easier for a document to match the combined "text" field than the > source "string" fields. A fair percentage of the terms may occur in both > "text" and "string" fields, but it looks like a fair percentage may occur > only in the string fields. > > Identify a specific document that is returned by the first query and not > the > second. Then examine each non-text "string" field value of that document to > see if the query terms would match after text field analysis but are not > exact string matches for the string fields in which the terms do occur. > > -- Jack Krupansky > -----Original Message----- From: André Maldonado > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:23 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: ExtendedDisMax Question - Strange behaviour > > > Erick, thanks for your reply and sorry for the confusion in last e-mail. > But it is hard to explain the situation without that bunch of code. > ... > >
