Bah... While attempting to duplicate this on our 4.x instance I
realized I was mis-reading the analysis output. In the example I
mentioned it was actually a SynonymFilter in the analysis chain that
was affecting the term position (we have several synonyms for
"telescope").
Regardless, it seems to not be a problem in 4.x.
Thanks,
--jay
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 8:16 AM, Jay Luker wrote:
>>
>> From looking at the analysis debugger I can see that the WDF is
>> getting the term "Telescope,SALT" and correctly splitting on the
>> comma. The problem seems to be that the original term is given the 1st
>> position, e.g.:
>>
>> Pos Term
>> 1 Southern
>> 2 African
>> 3 Large
>> 4 Telescope,SALT <-- original term
>> 5 Telescope
>> 6 SALT
>
>
> Jay, I have WDF with preserveOriginal turned on. I get the following from
> WDF parsing in the analysis page on either 3.5 or 4.1-SNAPSHOT, and the
> analyzer shows that all four of the query words are found in consecutive
> fields. On the new version, I had to slide a scrollbar to the right to see
> the last term. Visually they were not in consecutive fields on the new
> version (they were on 3.5), but the position number says otherwise.
>
>
> 1 Southern
> 2 African
> 3 Large
> 4 Telescope,SALT
> 4 Telescope
> 5 SALT
> 5 TelescopeSALT
>
> My full WDF parameters:
> index: {preserveOriginal=1, splitOnCaseChange=1, generateNumberParts=1,
> catenateWords=1, splitOnNumerics=1, stemEnglishPossessive=1,
> luceneMatchVersion=LUCENE_35, generateWordParts=1, catenateAll=0,
> catenateNumbers=1}
> query: {preserveOriginal=1, splitOnCaseChange=1, generateNumberParts=1,
> catenateWords=0, splitOnNumerics=1, stemEnglishPossessive=1,
> luceneMatchVersion=LUCENE_35, generateWordParts=1, catenateAll=0,
> catenateNumbers=0}
>
> I understand from other messages on the mailing list that I should not have
> preserveOriginal on the query side, but I have not yet changed it.
>
> If your position numbers really are what you indicated, you may have found a
> bug. I have not tried the released 4.0.0 version, I expect to deploy from
> the 4.x branch under development.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
