: Rank 3: Documents containing atleast n (n < N, where N is total number of : query terms) in the same section and in order
that's a non-trivial goal in itself -- even without the "in the same section" restriction, i can't think of a way to do that off the top of my head other then a Span query for every Combination ... I think you may need a custom query for that. : However, the number of query terms is what i am more concerned about when it : comes to implementing using Phrase query versus Span query in terms of query : speed. I don't know if anyone has done any benchmarks of Phrase vs Span that fit your description. it shoudl be fairly easy to crank some out. : > I have no idea if it will be faster/slower then a span query, but it's a : > little simpler because you don't need to use artificial section boundry : > tokens. : Wouldnt the phrase/span query match across sections if I do not introduced : the artifical section boundry? if the position increment gap between sections is larger then the slop factor you query with, then you don't need an artificial boundary token. The subject of creating artificial tokens to indicate chapter/section/paragraph/sentence boundaries and then using SpanNotQueries to make sure searches don't cross one of those boundaries -- but it doesn't sound like that's something you are worried about. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
