[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Doron Cohen updated LUCENE-1310:
--------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-1310.patch

Updated patch fixes this issue. 
In case of repeating terms in the query, this might be slower than previous 
patch, but it is supposedly correct in all cases while the previous one was not 
guaranteed to be always correct. There are no performance implications for the 
more common case of no repeating terms in the query.
I plan to commit this in a day or two.


> Phrase query with term repeated 3 times requires more slop than expected
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1310
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1310
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.3.1, 2.3.2
>            Reporter: Grant Glouser
>            Assignee: Doron Cohen
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1310.1.patch, LUCENE-1310.patch, 
> LUCENE-1310.patch, LUCENE-1310.patch, LUCENE-1310.patch, 
> TestSloppyPhraseQuery.java
>
>
> Consider a document with the text "A A A".
> The phrase query "A A A" (exact match) succeeds.
> The query "A A A"~1 (same document and query, just increasing the slop value 
> by one) fails.
> "A A A"~2 succeeds again.
> If the exact match succeeds, I wouldn't expect the same query but with more 
> slop to fail.  The fault seems to require some term to be repeated at least 
> three times in the query, but the three occurrences do not need to be 
> adjacent.  I will attach a file that contains a set of JUnit tests that 
> demonstrate what I mean.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to