Apologies, my previous message crossed yours. Good to hear that it's not intended behavior, I was worried.
thanks for the fix! Kind regards stefcl wrote: > > Thanks, > Even if you add to the example a document called "giga", I'm not sure that > searching "giga~0.8" would return anything. > > It seems a bit weird because an exact search (which I guess should be more > or less equivalent to a fuzzy search with nearly ~1 similarity) would > actually return some results. > > I guess it was part of an attempt to prevent unsignificant terms from > having unreasonable impact to the score, but can we still call that factor > "minimum similarity" then? > > I really suspect there's something broken here, or perhaps I just fail to > understand the logic. The way it worked in 2.4.1 seemed much more > interesting, now even a 100% exact match isn't enough for the query to > succeed, in my opinion this should have been implemented as a completely > different query type. > > I have no intention in making any offense here, I'm just trying to > understand... > Kind regards > > > Michael McCandless-2 wrote: >> >> This looks to have been caused by: >> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1124 >> >> Which short circuits all matching if the term is too short relative to >> the min similarity. But I guess something must be wrong w/ the >> formula. >> >> I'll reopen that issue & mark fix for 2.9.1. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Difference-between-2.4.1-and-2.9.0-%28possible-regression-%29-tp25924689p25929456.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
