Actually that was what I ended up doing although I thought this approach could have it's merits.
Just for argument's sake, if we could have complex analyzers on a field wouldn't it have better recall for spell suggestions sacrificing on the precision although. Would that be a bad idea? Also DirectSpellChecker is probably not where this should be in. Maybe in SpellChecker or a new spell checker. Or do you think it's possible that something like this should sit outside lucene. On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Varun Thacker > <varunthacker1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was looking at the results from the spellchecker. So If I have a field > > where the terms get analyzed the results shown are the analyzed form as a > > suggestion. Example, for Battery the spell suggestion if one makes a > mistake > > would be batteri. > > > > I don't think you should use such a field for spellchecking, instead > just something very simple like standardtokenizer + lowercase for the > spellcheck field. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Regards, Varun Thacker http://www.vthacker.in/
