On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Varun Thacker <varunthacker1...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I think the idea makes sense (basically it would be like analyzing/fuzzysuggester, but for spellchecking?) So it could use maybe even the same datastructures but different logic. This means someone could use it to do spellchecking (not just suggest) on languages like japanese too. So this would be a really nice option to add in my opinion. But directspellchecker is pretty simple and limited essentially by what the term dictionary can do. So you cant use fancy datastructures like FST weights, thats why i was confused about the email. The overall approach is a good idea though. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
