[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12136?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16415999#comment-16415999
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-12136:
---------------------------------------
Change away ;)
But if you decide to change it, please pretend you don't understand anything
about the guts of query parsers, analysis chains and the like and their
interdependencies.
Remember the user's list question about
q=field1:something&hl.q=otherword
and the surprise that "otherword" was analyzed against the "df" field.
But wait, it wouldn't have been if using edismax and we happened to include
field1 in the "qf" list but maybe not if we overrode hl.qparser parameter, but
we could always override that with {!....}......
I couldn't figure out a way to convey that so chose a simpler prescriptive
approach. If people dive deeper they can tweak all the other params....
> Document hl.q parameter
> -----------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-12136
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12136
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: documentation
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 7.4
>
> Attachments: SOLR-12136.patch
>
>
> *********Original issue:
> If I specify:
> hl.fl=f1&hl.q=something
> then "something" is analyzed against the default field rather than f1
> So in this particular case, f1 did some diacritic folding
> (GermanNormalizationFilterFactory specifically). But my guess is that
> the df was still "text", or at least something that didn't reference
> that filter.
> I'm defining "worked" in what follows is getting highlighting on "Kündigung"
> so
> Kündigung was indexed as Kundigung
> So far so good. Now if I try to highlight on f1
> These work
> q=f1:Kündigung&hl.fl=f1
> q=f1:Kündigung&hl.fl=f1&hl.q=Kundigung <= NOTE, without umlaut
> q=f1:Kündigung&hl.fl=f1&hl.q=f1:Kündigung <= NOTE, with umlaut
> This does not work
> q=f1:Kündigung&hl.fl=f1&hl.q=Kündigung <= NOTE, with umlaut
> Testing this locally, I'd get the highlighting if I defined df as "f1"
> in all the above cases.
> **********David Smiley's analysis
> BTW hl.q is parsed by the hl.qparser param which defaults to the defType
> param which defaults to "lucene".
> In common cases, I think this is a non-issue. One common case is
> defType=edismax and you specify a list of fields in 'qf' (thus your query has
> parts parsed on various fields) and then you set hl.fl to some subset of
> those fields. This will use the correct analysis.
> You make a compelling point in terms of what a user might expect -- my gut
> reaction aligned with your expectation and I thought maybe we should change
> this. But it's not as easy at it seems at first blush, and there are bad
> performance implications. How do you *generically* tell an arbitrary query
> parser which field it should parse the string with? We have no such
> standard. And lets say we did; then we'd have to re-parse the query string
> for each field in hl.fl (and consider hl.fl might be a wildcard!). Perhaps
> both solveable or constrainable with yet more parameters, but I'm pessimistic
> it'll be a better outcome.
> The documentation ought to clarify this matter. Probably in hl.fl to say
> that the fields listed are analyzed with that of their field type, and that
> it ought to be "compatible" (the same or similar) to that which parsed the
> query.
> Perhaps, like spellcheck's spellcheck.collateParam.* param prefix,
> highlighting could add a means to specify additional parameters for hl.q to
> be parsed (not just the choice of query parsers). This isn't particularly
> pressing though since this can easily be added to the front of hl.q like
> hl.q={!edismax qf=$hl.fl v=$q}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
