Ah, I didn’t read thoroughly enough. The problem is stopwords don’t really
count for fuzzy searching. By specifying “junk~” you’re not really searching
for “junk” or variants. You’re telling Solr “find any term that is a fuzzy
match” to “junk”. Under the covers, a search is being made for “jank
Did you really want this to go to the solr-user list? While we do respond to
issues with Solr, it’s on a volunteer basis, various paid support offerings are
on the solr resources page: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/Support
And attachments are aggressively removed by the Apache mail system.
>
Hi Support Team,
I hope all is well. Let me explain what we are, what we are currently
doing & what we want from you.
We are IT based healthcare company, providing healthcare software services
(EHR/EMR) to doctors across the U.S. In many important modules of our products
we have
Thanks for your reply Erick.
I create a simple field type as below for testing and added 'junk' to the
stopwords but it doesnt seem to honor it when using fuzzzy search
Btw, I am using qf along with edismax and pass the value in q (sample query
below).
Hi everyone,
I have arrived to a situation where we are performing atomic updates in
multiple fields
and if only one field has the correct operation modifier the rest of the
fields will be treated similarly.
I am not sure if this is a bug or a Feature.
Example Updating Part of a Document
If the
Hi
I am trying to implement autocomplete feature from two fields, name &
attribute1. I have setup ngram for both the fields and have copyfield that
stores the ngrams results.
fl only contains name which is used by ui.
Is it possible to display records that match on values from attribute1? The
(the correct list here is solr-user, not dev)
Solr has minimal support for _formatting_ the response; that's generally up
the the application that builds the UI. If you want Solr to retain the
original input precision which appears to be lost here, then use a typical
copyField approach to a
So yeah, this constant score trick isn't meant for a "large" list, of course.
For bigger result sets, the ExternalFileField feature would be one way to go.
Or maybe the QueryElevationComponent. And I suppose also, the LTR feature
could be abused for this?
Erik
> On May 9, 2019,
Sure,
I can give this a shot! Hope it works out well for bigger resultsets too :)
Big Thanks, Erik :)
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:20 PM Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Atita -
>
> You mean something like q=id:(X Y Z) to be able to order them arbitrarily?
>
> Yes, you can use the constant score query
Atita -
You mean something like q=id:(X Y Z) to be able to order them arbitrarily?
Yes, you can use the constant score query syntax to set the score, e.g.:
q=id:Z^=3 OR id:Y^=2 OR id:X^=1
Hope that helps.
Erik
> On May 9, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Atita Arora wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is
Hi,
Is there someway way to retrieve the docs in the same order as queried in
the solr query?
I am aware of leveraging bq for this and have even tried overriding custom
similarity to achieve this but I am looking for something simpler.
Please enlighten me.
Best Regards,
Atita
I find that the edismax boost query implementation is not quite logical. It
does not allow selectively decreasing the relevancy score anymore.
E.g. bq=color:red^2 can be added to increase the score of matching documents.
But how can I decrease the score for documents with color:red? Before Solr
Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 18:56, Doug Reeder
escreveu:
>
> Similarly, we have a filter query that only returns products over $150:
> fq=price:[150+TO+*]
>
> Can this be changed to a q or qf parameter where products less than $150
> have score less than any product priced $150 or more? (A price
To those interested, I was able to disable coord factor by overriding it in
a new CustomSimilarity jar file. This can effectively sum the scores from
multiple edismax queries.
However, I'd be interested in any other methods which are able to do
not-just-direct-sums and can work on other logics for
14 matches
Mail list logo
