to handle? Case changes?
Letter/non-letter transitions? All of the above?
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
On 12/29/14 5:24 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
WDF is powerful, but it is not magic. In general, the indexed data is
expected to be clean
a limitation.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
wrote:
Thanks Erick!
Yes, if I set splitOnCaseChange=0, then of course it'll work -- but then
query for mixedCase will no longer also match mixed Case.
I think I want WDF to... kind of do all
On 12/30/14 11:45 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 11:12, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I'm a bit confused about what splitOnCaseChange combined with catenateWords
is meant to do at all. It _is_ generating both the split and single-word
tokens at query time
of the features that Solr is missing is support for the
Google-like feature of splitting concatenated words (regardless of case.)
That's worthy of a Jira.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
wrote:
I guess I don't understand what the four use
On 12/30/14 12:35 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
You want preserveOriginal=“1”.
You should only do this processing at index time.
If I only do this processing at index time, then mixedCase at query
time will no longer match mixed Case in the index/source material.
I think I'm having trouble
(the whole
directory, including data) between runs after you've changed
your schema (at least any of your analysis that pertains to indexing).
Mixing old and new schema definitions can add to the confusion!
Good luck!
Erick
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote
On 12/29/14 5:24 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
WDF is powerful, but it is not magic. In general, the indexed data is
expected to be clean while the query might be sloppy. You need to separate
the index and query analyzers and they need to respect that distinction
I do not understand what separate
that the defaults for WDFF are _not_ identical. catenateWords and
catenateNumbers are 1 in the
index portion and 0 in the query section. Still, this shouldn't be a
problem all other things being equal.
Best,
Erick
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
On 9/2/14 1:51
Hello, I'm running into a case where a query is not returning the
results I expect, and I'm hoping someone can offer some explanation that
might help me fine tune things or understand what's up.
I am running Solr 4.3.
My filter chain includes a WordDelimiterFilter and, later a filter that
+:
plus.google.com/appinions
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112002776285509593336/112002776285509593336/posts
w: appinions.com http://www.appinions.com/
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Hello, I'm running into a case where a query is not returning
+:
plus.google.com/appinions
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112002776285509593336/112002776285509593336/posts
w: appinions.com http://www.appinions.com/
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Thanks for the response.
I understand the problem a little bit better after
On 9/2/14 1:51 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
bq: In my actual index, query MacBook is matching ONLY mac book, and
not macbook
I suspect your query parameters for WordDelimiterFilterFactory doesn't have
catenate words set.
What do you see when you enter these in both the index and query portions
of
On 12/17/13 1:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
As i mentioned in the blog above, as long as you have a uniqueKey field
that supports range queries, bulk exporting of all documents is fairly
trivial by sorting on your uniqueKey field and using an fq that also
filters on your uniqueKey field modify
What order, the order if you supply no explicit sort at all?
Solr does not make any guarantees about what order documents will come
back in if you do not ask for a sort.
In general in Solr/lucene, the only way to update a document is to
re-add it as a new document, so that's probably what's
Do you know about the Solr synonym feature? That seems more applicable
to what you're describing then stopwords. I'd stay away from stopwords
entirely here, and try to do what you want with synonyms.
Multi-word synonyms can be tricky, I'm not entirely sure the right way
to do it for this use
This is good to know, and I find it welcome advice; I would recommend
making sure this advice is clearly highlighted in the relevant Solr
docs, such as any getting started docs.
I'm not sure everyone realizes this, and some go down tomcat route
without realizing the Solr committers recommend
I have a solr 4.3 instance I am in the process of standing up. It
started out with an empty index.
I have in it's solrconfig.xml,
updateHandler class=solr.DirectUpdateHandler2
autoCommit
maxDocs10/maxDocs
openSearcherfalse/openSearcher
/autoCommit
updateHandler
I
for visibility.
You can either change the value to true, or alternatively call a deterministic
commit call at the end of your load (a solr/update?commit=true will default to
openSearcher=true).
Hope that's of use!
Jason
On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote
I am using SolrJ in a Java (actually jruby) project, with Solr 4.3.
When I instantiate an HttpSolrServer, I get the dreaded:
log4j:WARN No appenders could be found for logger
(org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.HttpClientUtil).
log4j:WARN Please initialize the log4j system properly.
log4j:WARN
So, trying to use a SolrJ 4.3 to talk to an old Solr 1.4. Specifically
to add documents.
The wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj suggests, I think, that
this should work, so long as you:
server.setParser(new XMLResponseParser());
However, when I do this, I still get a
reading this wants to share any other
potential gotchas on solrj 4.3 talking to solr 1.4, feel free!
On 7/11/13 4:24 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
So, trying to use a SolrJ 4.3 to talk to an old Solr 1.4. Specifically
to add documents.
The wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj suggests, I
(to solr-user, CC'ing author I'm responding to)
I found the solr-user listserv contribution at:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201305.mbox/%3c51965e70.6070...@elyograg.org%3E
Which explain a way you can supply custom rulefiles to ICUTokenizer, in
this case to tell
appear to be working now. Thanks! And thanks for this feature.
On 6/20/2013 3:40 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 6/20/2013 1:26 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I want, for instance, C++ Language to be tokenized into C++,
Language. But the ICUTokenizer, even with the
rulefiles=Latn:Latin-break-only
I am trying to get Solr installed in Tomcat, and having trouble.
I am trying to use the instructions at
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrTomcat as a guide. Trying to start with
the example Solr from the Solr distro. Tried using the Tried with both a
binary distro with existing solr.war, and
Thanks! I guess I should have asked on-list BEFORE wasting 4 hours
fighting with it myself, but I was trying to be a good user and do my
homework! Oh well.
Off to the logging instructions, hope I can figure them out -- if you
could update the tomcat instructions with the simplest possible
I'm going to add a note to http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrLogging ,
with the Tomcat sample Error filterStart error, as an example of
something you might see if you have not set up logging.
Then at least in the future, googling solr tomcat error filterStart
might lead someone to the clue that
Okay, sadly, i still can't get this to work.
Following the instructions at:
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrLogging#Using_the_example_logging_setup_in_containers_other_than_Jetty
I copied solr/example/lib/ext/*.jar into my tomcat's ./lib, and copied
solr/example/resources/log4j.properties
logging setup, which ended up confirmed.
Jonathan
On 5/30/2013 3:19 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Okay, sadly, i still can't get this to work.
Following the instructions at:
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrLogging#Using_the_example_logging_setup_in_containers_other_than_Jetty
I copied solr
I want to set up Solr replication between a master and slave, where no
automatic polling every X minutes happens, instead the slave only
replicates on command. [1]
So the basic question is: What's the best way to do that? But I'll
provide what I've been doing etc., for anyone interested.
Does anyone know of any tutorials, basic examples, and/or documentation
on writing your own Filter plugin for Solr? For Solr 4.x/4.3?
I would like a Solr 4.3 version of the normalization filters found here
for Solr 1.4: https://github.com/billdueber/lib.umich.edu-solr-stuff
But those are
When I do things like this and want to avoid empty tokens even though
previous analysis might result in some--I just throw one of these at the
end of my analysis chain:
!-- get rid of empty string tokens. max is required, although
we don't really care. --
filter
Well, if you really want EXACT exact, just use a KeywordTokenizer (ie,
not tokenize at all). But then matches will really have to be EXACT,
including punctuation, whitespace, diacritics, etc. But a query will
only match if it 'exactly' matches one value in your multi-valued field.
You could
Honestly, I'd just map em both the same thing in the index.
sprayer, washer = sprayer
or
sprayer, washer = sprayer_washer
At both index and query time. Now if the source document includes either
'sprayer' or 'washer', it'll get indexed as 'sprayer_washer'. And if
the user enters either
So I don't really know what I'm talking about, and I'm not really sure
if it's related or not, but your particular query:
The Beatles as musicians : Revolver through the Anthology
With the lone word that's a ':', reminds me of a dismax stopwords-type
problem I ran into. Now, I ran into it on
Thanks for the response. I am using Linux (RedHat).
It sounds like it may possibly be related to that bug.
But the thing is, the timestamped index directory is looking to me like
it's the _current_ one, with the non-timestamped one being an old out of
date one. So that does not seem to be
Hmm, I don't have a replication.properties file, I don't think. Oh
wait, yes I do there it is! I guess the replication process makes this
file?
Okay
I don't see an index directory in the replication.properties file at all
though. Below is my complete replication.properties.
So I'm
On 1/18/2012 1:53 PM, Tomás Fernández Löbbe wrote:
As far as I know, the replication is supposed to delete the old directory
index. However, the initial question is why is this new index directory
being created. Are you adding/updating documents in the slave? what about
optimizing it? Are you
be lack of CPU or RAM on the server to do what's being asked of it.
But if that's the best I can do, 20 minutes of unavailability, I'll take
it).
On 1/19/2012 12:37 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Hmm, I don't have a replication.properties file, I don't think. Oh
wait, yes I do there it is! I
So Solr 1.4. I have a solr master/slave, where it actually doesn't poll
for replication, it only replicates irregularly when I issue a replicate
command to it.
After the last replication, the slave, in solr_home, has a data/index
directory as well as a data/index.20120113121302 directory.
I think maybe my Solr 1.4 replications have been failing for quite some
time, without me realizing it, possibly due to lack of disk space to
replicate some large segments.
Where would I look to see if a replication failed? Just the standard
solr log? What would I look for?
There's no
On 10/27/2011 9:14 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
Well, this could be explained if your fields are very short. Norms
are encoded into (part of?) a byte, so your ranking may be unaffected.
Try adding debugQuery=on and looking at the explanation. If you've
really omitted norms, I think you should see
So Solr 1.4. I decided I wanted to change a field to have
omitNorms=true that didn't previously.
So I changed the schema to have omitNorms=true. And I reindexed all
documents.
But it seems to have had absolutely no effect. All relevancy rankings
seem to be the same.
Now, I could have a
I don't have the complete answer. But I _think_ if you do one 'bq' param
with multiple space-seperated directives, it will work.
And escaping is a pain. But can be made somewhat less of a pain if you
realize that single quotes can sometimes be used instead of
double-quotes. What I do:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 04:33 , Jan Peter Stotz wrote:
I am now asking myself why would someone implement such a bloodcurdling
vulnerability into a web service? Until now I haven't found an exploit
using the parameters in a way an attacker would get an advantage. But the
way those parameters are
So I'm not an expert in the Solr JSON update message, never used it
before myself. It's documented here:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateJSON
But Solr is not a structured data store like mongodb or something; you
can send it an update command in JSON as a convenience, but don't let
that
You didn't tell us what your schema looks like, what fields with what
types are involved.
But similar to how you'd do it in your database, you need to find
'documents' that have a start date before your date in question, and an
end date after your date in question, to find the ones whose
I think there's something wrong with your database then, but okay.
You still haven't said what your Solr schema looks like -- that list of
values doesn't say what the solr field names or types are. I think this
is maybe because you don't actually have a Solr database and have no
idea how Solr
I don't know anything about LifeRay (never heard of it), but it sounds like
you've actually figured out what you need to know about LifeRay, all you've got
left is: how to replicate the writer solr server content into the readers.
This should tell you how:
I would imagine the performance penalties with deep paging will ALSO be there
if you just ask for 1 rows all at once though, instead of in, say, 100 row
paged batches. Yes? No?
-Original Message-
From: simon [mailto:mtnes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:44 AM
To:
You can use rsync to automatically only transfer the files that have
changed. I don't think you'll have to home grow your own 'only transfer
the diffs' solution, I think rsync will do that for you.
But yes, running an optimization, after many updates/deletes, will
generally mean nearly
tables. Others are suggesting 2 separate indexes on 2 different machines and
using SOLRs capacity to combine cores and generate a third index that
denormalizes the tables for us.
What capability is that, exaclty? I think you may be imagining it.
Solr does have some capability to distribute
One kind of hacky way to accomplish some of those tasks involves
creating a lot more Solr fields. (This kind of 'de-normalization' is
often the answer to how to make Solr do something).
So facet fields are ordinarily not tokenized or normalized at all. But
that doesn't work very well for
However, if you unify your schemas to do this, I'd consider whether you
really want seperate cores/shards in the first place.
If you want to search over all of them together, what are your reasons
to put them in seperate solr indexes in the first place? Ordinarily, if
you want to search over
Dismax queries can. But
sort=termfreq(all_lists_text,'indie+music')
is not using dismax. Apparenty termfreq function can not? I am not familiar
with the termfreq function.
To understand why you'd need to reindex, you might want to read up on how
lucene actually works, to get a basic
On 8/8/2011 5:10 PM, Markus Jelsma wrote:
Will the StatsComponent in Solr do what we need with minimal configuration?
Can the StatsComponent only be used on a subset of the data? For
example, only look at data from certain months?
If i remember correctly, it cannot.
Well, if you index things
It's the WordDelimiterFactory in your filter chain that's removing the
punctuation entirely from your index, I think.
Read up on what the WordDelimiter filter does, and what it's settings
are; decide how you want things to be tokenized in your index to get the
behavior your want; either get
No, it can not. It just sorts alphabetically, actually by raw byte-order.
No other facet sorting functionality is available, and it would be
tricky to implement in a performant way because of the way lucene
works. But it would certainly be useful to me too if someone could
figure out a way
I'm not sure what you mean by index distribution, that could possibly
mean several things.
But Solr has had a replication feature built into it from 1.4, that can
probably handle the same use cases as rsync, but better. So that may be
what you want.
There are certainly other experiments
It depends. Okay, the source contains 4 harv. l. rev. 45 .
Do you want a user entered harv. to ALSO match harv (without the
period) in source, and vice versa? Or do you require it NOT match? Or do
you not care?
The default filter analysis chain will index 4 harv. l. rev. 45
essentially as
There is not, and the way dismax works makes it not really that feasible
in theory, sadly.
One thing you could do instead is combine multiple separate dismax
queries using the nested query syntax. This will effect your relevancy
ranking possibly in odd ways, but anything that accomplishes 'mm
There's no great way to do this. I understand your problem as: It's a
multi-valued field, but you want to sort on whichever of those values
matched the query, not on the values that didn't. (Not entirely clear
what to do if the documents are in the result set becuse of a match in
an entirely
Not so much that it's a corner case in the sense of being unusual
neccesarily (I'm not sure), it's just something that fundamentally
doesn't fit well into lucene's architecture.
I'm not sure that filing a JIRA will be much use, it's really unclear
how one would get lucene to do this, it would
I think that Solr multi-core (nothing to do with CPU cores, just what
it's called in Solr) is what you're looking for.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CoreAdmin
On 8/3/2011 2:25 PM, Mike Papper wrote:
Hi, we run several independent websites on the same machines. Each site uses
a similar codebase
In your solr schema.xml, are the fields you are using defined as text
fields with analyzers? It sounds like you want no analysis at all, which
probably means you don't want text fields either, you just want string
fields. That will make it impossible to search for individual tokens
though,
On 8/2/2011 11:42 AM, Marian Steinbach wrote:
Can anyone tell me how a working configuration for Jetty 6.1.22 would have
to look like?
You know that Solr distro comes with a jetty with a Solr in it, right,
as an example application? Even if you don't want to use it for some
reason, that
What's the reasoning behind having three shards on one machine, instead
of just combining those into one shard? Just curious. I had been
thinking the point of shards was to get them on different machines, and
there'd be no reason to have multiple shards on one machine.
On 8/2/2011 1:59 PM,
Any changes you make related to stemming or normalization are likely
going to require a re-index, just how it goes, just how solr/lucene
works. What you can do just by normalizing at query time is limited,
almost any good solution to this type of problem is going to require
normalization at
On 8/1/2011 12:42 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Otherwise i need to backup the whole index and try to reindex
overnight when
cms users are sleeping.
With some work you can do this using an extra solr that just pulls everything,
then swaps the indexes (that needs a bit of downtime), then
On 8/1/2011 1:40 PM, Mike Sokolov wrote:
If you want to avoid re-indexing, you could consider building a
synonym file that is generated using your rule set, and then using
that to expand your queries. You'd need to get a list of all terms in
your index and then process them to generate
Not sure if this will do what you want, but one way might be using facets.
Take the term you are interested in, and apply it as an fq. Now the
result set will include only documents that include that term. So also
request facets for that result set, the top 10 facets are the top 10
terms
Keep in mind that if you use a field type that includes spaces (eg
StrField, or KeywordTokenizer), then if you're using dismax or lucene
query parsers, the only way to find matches in this field on queries
that include spaces will be to do explicit phrase searches with double
quotes.
These
It's not clear to me why you would try to do that, I'm not sure it makes
a lot of sense.
You want to find all documents that have sail boat as a phrase AND
have sail somewhere in them AND have boat somewhere in them? That's
exactly the same as just all documents that have sail boat as a
I have no idea what you mean. A file on your disk? What does INDEX in
solr mean? Be more specific and clear, perhaps provide an example,
and maybe someone can help you.
On 7/28/2011 5:45 PM, GAURAV PAREEK wrote:
Hi All,
How we can check the particular;ar file is not INDEX in solr ?
I don't know the answer to feasibilty either, but I'll just point out
that boolean OR corresponds to set union, not set intersection.
So I think you probably mean a 'union' type of filter query;
'intersection' does not seem to describe what you are describing;
ordinary 'fq' values are
I'm pretty sure Solr/lucene have no such optimization already, but
it's not clear to me that it would result in much of a performance
benefit, just because of the way lucene works, it's not obvious to me
that the second version of your query will be noticeably faster than the
first version.
So I've got Solr 1.4. I've got replication going on.
Once a day, before replication, I optimize on master. Then I replicate.
I'd expect optimization before replicate would basically replace all
files on slave, this is expected.
But that means I'd also expect that the index files on slave
Thanks, this is helpful.
I do indeed periodically update or delete just about every doc in the
index, so it makes sense that optimization might be neccesary even in
post 1.4, but I'm still on 1.4 -- add this to another thing to look into
rather than assume after I upgrade.
Indeed I was
: Jonathan Rochkind
To : solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
Subject : Re: previous and next rows of current record
I think maybe I know what you mean.
You have a result set generated by a query. You have an item detail page
in your web app -- on that item detail page, you want to give
next/previous buttons
How old is 'older'? I'm pretty sure I'm still getting much faster performance
on an optimized index in Solr 1.4.
This could be due to the nature of my index and queries (which include some
medium sized stored fields, and extensive facetting -- facetting on up to a
dozen fields in every
How often do you replicate? Could it be a too-frequent-commit problem?
(a replication is a commit to the slave).
On 7/21/2011 4:39 AM, Alexander Valet | edelight wrote:
Hi everybody,
we are using Solr 1.4.1 as our search backend and are replicating (Java based)
from one master to four
I think maybe I know what you mean.
You have a result set generated by a query. You have an item detail page
in your web app -- on that item detail page, you want to give
next/previous buttons for current search results.
If that's it, read on (although news isn't good), if that's not it,
I've had this problem too, although never come up with a good solution.
I've wondered, is there any clever way to use the highlighter to
accomplish tasks like this, or is that more trouble than any help it'll
get you?
Jonathan
On 7/21/2011 5:27 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011
Huh, I'm still not completely following. I'm sure it makes sense if you
understand the underlying implemetnation, but I don't understand how
'type' and 'defType' don't mean exactly the same thing, just need to be
expressed differently in different location.
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but
Nope, you're not missing anything, there's no way to alter a document in an
index but reindexing the whole document. Solr's architecture would make it
difficult (although never say impossible) to do otherwise. But you're right it
would be convenient for people other than you.
Reindexing a
Is it generally recognized that this terminology is confusing, or is it just
me?
I do understand what they do (at least well enough to use them), but I find it
confusing that it's called defType as a main param, but type in a
LocalParam, when to me they both seem to do the same thing --
In practice, in my experience at least, a very 'expensive' commit can
still slow down searches significantly, I think just due to CPU (or
i/o?) starvation. Not sure anything can be done about that. That's my
experience in Solr 1.4.1, but since searches have always been async with
commits, it
There's no general documentation on that, because it depends on exactly what
container you are using (Tomcat? Jetty? Something else?) and how you are using
it. It is confusing, but blame Java for that, nothing unique to Solr.
So since there's really nothing unique to Solr here, you could try
On 6/28/2011 1:38 PM, Pranav Prakash wrote:
- Will the commit by incremental indexer script also commit the
previously uncommitted changes made by full indexer script before it broke?
Yes, as long as the Solr instance hasn't crashed. Anything added but
not yet committed sticks around
Nope. But you can move your existing index into a core in a multi-core
setup. But a multi-core setup is a multi-core setup, there's no way to
have an index accessible at a non-core URL in a multi-core setup.
On 6/28/2011 2:53 PM, lee carroll wrote:
hi
I'm looking at setting up multi core
Yeah, I see your points. It's complicated. I'm not sure either.
But the thing is:
in order to use a feature like that you'd have to really think hard
about
the query analysis of your fields, and which ones will produce which
tokens in which situations
You need to think really hard about
Okay, so since you put cardiologist in the 'q', you only want facet
values that have 'cardiologist' (or 'Cardiologist') to show in up the
facet list.
In general, there's no good way to do that.
But.
If you want to do some client-side processing before you submit the
query to Solr, and on
Thanks, that's helpful.
It still seems like current behavior does the wrong thing in _many_ cases (I
know a lot of people get tripped up by it, sometimes on this list) -- but I
understand your cases where it does the right thing, and where what I'm
suggesting would be the wrong thing.
On 6/16/2011 4:41 PM, Mari Masuda wrote:
One reservation I have is that eventually we would like to be able to type in Iraq and
find records across all of the collections at once instead of having to search each collection
separately. Although I don't know anything about it at this stage, I
mixing fields with
different analysis in a 'qf'.
On 6/14/2011 5:25 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Okay, let's try the debug trace again without a pf to be less confusing.
One field in qf, that's ordinary text tokenized, and does get hits:
q=churchill%20%3A%20rooseveltqt=searchqf=title1_tmm=100
Next, however, I predict you're going to ask how you do a 'join' or
otherwise query accross both these cores at once though. You can't do
that in Solr.
On 6/15/2011 1:00 PM, Frank Wesemann wrote:
You'll configure multiple cores:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CoreAdmin
Hi.
How to have multiple
/2011 5:25 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Okay, let's try the debug trace again without a pf to be less confusing.
One field in qf, that's ordinary text tokenized, and does get hits:
q=churchill%20%3A%20rooseveltqt=searchqf=title1_tmm=100%debugQuery=truepf=
str name=rawquerystringchurchill
I'm aware that using a field tokenized with KeywordTokenizerFactory is
in a dismax 'qf' is often going to result in 0 hits on that field --
(when a whitespace-containing query is entered). But I do it anyway,
for cases where a non-whitespace-containing query is entered, then it
hits. And in
|
title1_t:roosevelt)~0.01)~3) ()/str
On 6/14/2011 5:19 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I'm aware that using a field tokenized with KeywordTokenizerFactory is
in a dismax 'qf' is often going to result in 0 hits on that field --
(when a whitespace-containing query is entered). But I do it anyway
Um, normally that would never happen, because, well, like you say, the
inverted index doesn't have docC for term K1, because doc C didn't
include term K1.
If you search on q=K1, then how/why would docC ever be in your result
set? Are you seeing it in your result set? The question then would
Nope, not possible.
I'm not even sure what it would mean semantically. If you had default
operator OR ordinarily, but default operator AND just for field2,
then what would happen if you entered:
field1:foo field2:bar field1:baz field2:bom
Where the heck would the ANDs and ORs go? The
1 - 100 of 475 matches
Mail list logo
