I'd leave out the extra cts:and-query. A near-query is pretty much an and-query
with distance options anyway.
But looking at the xdmp:plan output, I think the extra and-query gets optimized
away. This is a 7.0-2.3 database with most of the position options enabled.
deep-equal(
xdmp:plan(
cts:search(
fn:doc(),
cts:near-query(
cts:and-query(
(cts:word-query("cat"), cts:word-query("dog"))),
1000,
(),
3)))/
*:final-plan,
xdmp:plan(
cts:search(
fn:doc(),
cts:near-query(
(cts:word-query("cat"), cts:word-query("dog")),
1000,
(),
3)))/
*:final-plan)
=> true()
-- Mike
On 30 May 2014, at 12:01 , Steiner, David J. (LNG-DAY)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In the documentation:
> http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/search-dev/relevance#id_85289
>
> The suggestion is to use the following to achieve a result that limits the
> distance between the words:
> xquery version "1.0-ml";
> cts:search(fn:doc(),
> cts:near-query(
> cts:and-query((
> cts:word-query("cat"),
> cts:word-query("dog") )),
> 1000, (), 3) )
>
> I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between that query and this
> query, with regards to the type of results I could get:
> xquery version "1.0-ml";
> cts:search(fn:doc(),
> cts:near-query(
> (cts:word-query("cat"),
> cts:word-query("dog") ),
> 1000, (), 3) )
>
> So far, I can’t figure out what would I’d get with one that I wouldn’t get
> with the other. I even added 4 more sample docs, one with only “dog”, one
> with only “cat”, one with “cat” near “cat” and one with “dog” near “dog”.
> Whether I make the distance 1, 5, 10 and the weight 0, 1, 3, I get the same
> results regardless of which I run. If there’s something I should get with
> one or the other, what would the “document” look like?
>
> Thanks,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
