Several points: 1> Prabin's suggestion is, I think, equivalent to something like: title:(business AND author)^9.0 OR author:(business AND author)^3.0 OR description:(business AND author)^1.0. Either way may give you results more in line with what you expect. (note, the syntax here is suspect, but you get the idea) I'm not sure what the boosting in your original clause really does, but it seems suspect... but then I'm no scoring expert.
2> If you haven't already, get a copy of Luke and run a few of these scenarios through the "explain" function. That'll show you a lot about how the queries are scored. And Query.explain is your friend too. 3> Boosts are a modifier of the score, so expecting the result sets to be simply predictable will probably surprise you. Boosting will *tend* to sort things the way you want, but a document whose description score is 10000 and title score is 1 will still sort above other title scores (numbers pulled out of thin air). That said, since your title and author fields will very probably be shorter than description, they'll tend to sort first anyway I suspect. Best Erick On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:46 AM, vikas bucha <vikasbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. > > I have an index with few fields. Title, Description, Author etc. > For a search query "business development", the equivalent lucene query I > build is: > > *(TITLE: business^9.00 OR AUTHOR: business^3.00 OR > DESCRIPTION:business^1.00) AND (TITLE: development^9.00 OR AUTHOR: > development^3.00 OR DESCRIPTION:development^1.00) > * > The expected result is to get all documents having both *business* and * > development* in the *TITLE* on top, followed by any one in TITLE and the > other in AUTHOR(if available) followed by both in AUTHOR and so on..., till > we get all docs having all the terms appearing anywhere in the document. > But > the results are completely different from the expectation. > > Please reply if you'd require any other information. > > This might be a trivial issue for the pros. I have pulled my hair at it for > a while. > Any help with what's wrong here would be highly appreciated. > > Thanks > Vikash. > -- > If there's no way out, then let's make one. >
