Hi Erick, I tried with expand=true and got exactly the same tokens i.e., seabiscuit sea bird at 1,2 and 3 positions respectively. As per solr documentation at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.SynonymFilterFactory, explicit mappings ignore the expand parameter in the schema.
So, the problem of creating compound problems at query time remains. Parvesh Garg http://www.zettata.com On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Parvesh Garg <parv...@zettata.com> wrote: > Hi Roman, thanks for the link, will go through it. > > Erick, will try with expand=true once and check out the results. Will > update this thread with the findings. I remember we rejected expand=true > because of some weird spaghetti problem. Will check it out again. > > Thanks, > > Parvesh Garg > http://www.zettata.com > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Parvesh, >> I think you should check the following jira >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5379. You will find there >> links >> to other possible solutions/problems:-) >> Roman >> On 28 Oct 2013 09:06, "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Consider setting expand=true at index time. That >> > puts all the tokens in your index, and then you >> > may not need to have any synonym >> > processing at query time since all the variants will >> > already be in the index. >> > >> > As it is, you've replaced the words in the original with >> > synonyms, essentially collapsed them down to a single >> > word and then you have to do something at query time >> > to get matches. If all the variants are in the index, you >> > shouldn't have to. That's what I meant by "raw". >> > >> > Best, >> > Erick >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Parvesh Garg <parv...@zettata.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Erick, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the suggestion. Like I said, I'm an infant. >> > > >> > > We tried synonyms both ways. sea biscuit => seabiscuit and seabiscuit >> => >> > > sea biscuit and didn't understand exactly how it worked. But I just >> > checked >> > > the analysis tool, and it seems to work perfectly fine at index time. >> > Now, >> > > I can happily discard my own filter and 4 days of work. I'm happy I >> got >> > to >> > > know a few ways on how/when not to write a solr filter :) >> > > >> > > I tried the string "sea biscuit sea bird" with expand=false and the >> > tokens >> > > i got were seabiscuit sea bird at 1,2 and 3 positions respectively. >> But >> > at >> > > query time, when I enter the same term "sea biscuit sea bird", using >> > > edismax and qf, pf2, and pf3, the parsedQuery looks like this: >> > > >> > > +((text:sea) (text:biscuit) (text:sea) (text:bird)) ((text:\"biscuit >> > sea\") >> > > (text:\"sea bird\")) ((text:\"seabiscuit sea\") (text:\"biscuit sea >> > > bird\"))" >> > > >> > > What I wanted instead was this >> > > >> > > "+((text:seabiscuit) (text:sea) (text:bird)) ((text:\"seabiscuit >> sea\") >> > > (text:\"sea bird\")) (text:\"seabiscuit sea bird\")" >> > > >> > > Looks like there isn't any other way than to pre-process query myself >> and >> > > create the compound word. What do you mean by "just query the raw >> > string"? >> > > Am I still missing something? >> > > >> > > Parvesh Garg >> > > http://www.zettata.com >> > > (This time I did remove my phone number :) ) >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Erick Erickson < >> erickerick...@gmail.com >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > Why did you reject using synonyms? You can have multi-word >> > > > synonyms just fine at index time, and at query time, since the >> > > > multiple words are already substituted in the index you don't >> > > > need to do the same substitution, just query the raw strings. >> > > > >> > > > I freely acknowledge you may have very good reasons for doing >> > > > this yourself, I'm just making sure you know what's already >> > > > there. >> > > > >> > > > See: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.SynonymFilterFactory >> > > > >> > > > Look particularly at the explanations for "sea biscuit" in that >> > section. >> > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > Erick >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Parvesh Garg <parv...@zettata.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > One more thing, Is there a way to remove my "accidentally sent >> phone >> > > > number >> > > > > in the signature" from the previous mail? aarrrggghhh >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
