Thanks for the reminder about the ref guide. I’ve added the new field type property to <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Field+Type+Definitions+and+Properties>.
-- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > > Hello Steve - that will do the job. I am sure it will be well documented in > the reference docs/cwiki as well, so we all can look this up later. > > Many thanks, > Markus > > > > -----Original message----- >> From:Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday 5th April 2017 23:50 >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Solr Shingle is not working properly in solr 6.5.0 >> >> Hi Markus, >> >> Here’s what I included in 6.5.1’s CHANGES.txt (as well as on branch_6x and >> master, so it’ll be included in future releases’ CHANGES.txt too): >> >> ----- >> * SOLR-10423: Disable graph query production via schema configuration >> <fieldtype ... enableGraphQueries="false">. >> This fixes broken queries for ShingleFilter-containing query-time >> analyzers when request param sow=false. >> (Steve Rowe) >> ----- >> >> -- >> Steve >> www.lucidworks.com >> >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Steve - please include a broad description of this feature in the next >>> CHANGES.txt. I will forget about this thread but need to be reminded of why >>> i could need it :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Markus >>> >>> >>> -----Original message----- >>>> From:Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday 5th April 2017 23:26 >>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Solr Shingle is not working properly in solr 6.5.0 >>>> >>>> Aman, >>>> >>>> In forthcoming Solr 6.5.1, this problem will be addressed by setting a new >>>> <fieldtype> option named “enableGraphQueries” to “false". >>>> >>>> Your fieldtype will look like this: >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> <fieldType name="cust_shingle" class=“solr.TextField" >>>> positionIncrementGap=“100” enableGraphQueries=“false”> >>>> <analyzer> >>>> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> >>>> <filter class="solr.ShingleFilterFactory" outputUnigrams=“false" >>>> maxShingleSize="4”/> >>>> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory”/> >>>> </analyzer> >>>> </fieldType> >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Steve >>>> www.lucidworks.com >>>> >>>>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Aman, >>>>> >>>>> I’ve created <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10423> for this >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Steve >>>>> www.lucidworks.com >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 31, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Aman Deep Singh <amandeep.coo...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rich, >>>>>> Query creation is correct only thing what causing the problem is that >>>>>> Boolean + query while building the lucene query which causing all tokens >>>>>> to >>>>>> be matched in the document (equivalent of mm=100%) even though I use mm=1 >>>>>> it was using BOOLEAN + query as >>>>>> normal query one plus one abc >>>>>> Lucene query - >>>>>> +(((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one +nameShingle:one abc)) >>>>>> ((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one abc)) ((+nameShingle:one >>>>>> plus >>>>>> one +nameShingle:one abc)) (nameShingle:one plus one abc)) >>>>>> >>>>>> Now since my doc contains only one plus one thus -- >>>>>> one plus ,plus one, one plus one >>>>>> thus due to Boolean + it was not matching. >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Aman Deep Singh >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:41 PM Rick Leir <rl...@leirtech.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Aman >>>>>>> Did you try the Admin Analysis tool? It will show you which filters are >>>>>>> effective at index and query time. It will help you understand why you >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> not getting a mach. >>>>>>> Cheers -- Rick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On March 31, 2017 2:36:33 AM EDT, Aman Deep Singh < >>>>>>> amandeep.coo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> I was trying to use the shingle filter but it was not creating the >>>>>>>> query as >>>>>>>> desirable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> my schema is >>>>>>>> <fieldType name="cust_shingle" class="solr.TextField" >>>>>>>> positionIncrementGap= >>>>>>>> "100"> <analyzer> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> >>>>>>>> <filter >>>>>>>> class="solr.ShingleFilterFactory" outputUnigrams="false" >>>>>>>> maxShingleSize="4" >>>>>>>> /> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> </analyzer> >>>>>>>> </fieldType> >>>>>>>> <field name="nameShingle" type="cust_shingle" indexed="true" >>>>>>>> stored="true"/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> my solr query is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://localhost:8983/solr/productCollection/select?defType=edismax&debugQuery=true&q=one%20plus%20one%20four&qf=nameShingle&; >>>>>>>> *sow=false*&wt=xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and it was creating the parsed query as >>>>>>>> <str name="parsedquery"> >>>>>>>> (+(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one >>>>>>>> +nameShingle:one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one plus >>>>>>>> +nameShingle:plus one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery(((+nameShingle:one >>>>>>>> plus >>>>>>>> one +nameShingle:one four))) DisjunctionMaxQuery((nameShingle:one plus >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> four)))~1)/no_coord >>>>>>>> </str> >>>>>>>> <str name="parsedquery_toString"> >>>>>>>> *+((((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one +nameShingle:one >>>>>>>> four)) >>>>>>>> ((+nameShingle:one plus +nameShingle:plus one four)) ((+nameShingle:one >>>>>>>> plus one +nameShingle:one four)) (nameShingle:one plus one four))~1)* >>>>>>>> </str> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So ideally token creations is perfect but in the query it is using >>>>>>>> boolean + operator which is causing the problem as if i have a document >>>>>>>> with name as >>>>>>>> "one plus one" ,according to the shingles it has to matched as its >>>>>>>> token >>>>>>>> will be ("one plus","one plus one","plus one") . >>>>>>>> I have tried using the q.op and played around the mm also but nothing >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> giving me the correct response. >>>>>>>> Any idea how i can fetch that document even if the document is missing >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> token. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My expected response will be getting the document >>>>>>>> "one plus one" even the user query has any additional term like "one >>>>>>>> plus >>>>>>>> one two" and so on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Aman Deep Singh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
