Just curious,
Are you building your query or using a particular Query Parser?
which one?
Are you using MultiFieldQueryParser? I had problems with MFQP before and
was looking for other solutions besides dumping fields into a massive
"content" field.
TIA,
-Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Goodell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:30 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Can I prevent Sort fields from influencing score?
thanks that was my problem, i had code extending the search out to all
the fields, now it only extends the search out to the fields i'm
interested in.
- andy g
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:21:24 -0500 , Tim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This seems like it would be determined by how you generate your query - if
> your query doesn't search in the sorted fields, they shouldn't affect the
> scoring of your documents ...
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Goodell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:22 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Can I prevent Sort fields from influencing score?
> >
> >
> > I have been using the new lucene 1.4 SortField implementation wih some
> > custom fields added to old indexes so that the results can be sorted
> > by them. My problem here is that some of the String fields that I add
> > to the index come up in the search terms, so my results in sort by
> > score order are different. Here's an example:
> >
> > I added the field AUTHOR_SORTABLE to most of the documents in the
> > index. But if one of the AUTHOR_SORTABLE field in a document is set
> > to "andy", and i search for "andy", this document gets a very
> > different score than it used to.
> >
> > Since my added fields aren't set in stone, I'm interested in a general
> > solution, where all fields containing the text "SORTABLE" in the name
> > aren't considered for matches, only for sorting. Could I do this by
> > overriding Similarity? I tried doing this to set the lengthNorm() for
> > each of my sortable fields to 0, but it hasnt worked yet. Is there a
> > different way to store the sortable fields that will prevent this?
> >
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > - andy g
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
