Okay, thanks! This is my first time using Lucene, and what I want to do with it seems just slightly off the beaten path, so I'm glad to get some confirmation from an expert.
Yours, Paul On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > This would seem a pretty reasonable way to go. It would just require > that you know the boost for each category at indexing time, and would > likely require some experimentation to identify the best boosts for each > of your categories. > > Other than that, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. > > Upayavira > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 07:18 PM, Paul Jungwirth wrote: >> Thank you for your help! Just to be clear: I wasn't asking for the >> syntax, but I was wondering if in your judgment this approach is >> appropriate. Will it give sensible results? Are there drawbacks in >> performance, flexibility, etc.? Is there an better way to do it? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > In Solr syntax: >> > <field name="category" boost="8">entertainment</field> >> > <field name="category" boost="4">tv</field> >> > <field name="category" boost="20">sports</field> >> > <field name="category" boost="5">entertainment</field> >> > >> > That way: category(football tv) would do as you require, and would boost >> > football above TV. >> > >> > That is - use index time boosts on your fields when you add them. >> > >> > Upayavira >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 06:16 PM, Paul Jungwirth wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have documents with various tags, and each tag has a numeric score, >> >> so one document might be tagged "sports:20, entertainment:5, >> >> football:10", and another "entertainment:8, tv:4". I'd like to let >> >> people search by one or more tags, e.g. "football tv", and have the >> >> results sorted with higher-scored tags first. I thought I could do >> >> this by adding a separate Field for each tag (all named "tag" or >> >> whatever), and then boosting the fields according to their score. Does >> >> that seem like a good approach, or is there some cleaner way? I've >> >> been reading the Lucene in Action book and looking through the online >> >> docs, but I haven't found this usage scenario anywhere. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> -- >> >> _________________________________ >> >> Pulchritudo splendor veritatis. >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________________ >> Pulchritudo splendor veritatis. -- _________________________________ Pulchritudo splendor veritatis.
