Sorry being unclear and thank you for answering.
Consider the following documents A(k0,k1,k2), B(k1,k2,k3), and C(k0,k2,k3),
where A,B,C are document identifiers and the ks in bracket with each are the
terms each contains.
So Solr inverted index should be something like:
k0 -- A | C
k1 -- A | B
-make-sure-the-resulting-documents-contain-the-query-terms-tp3031637p3033451.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
only the union/intersection of the documents in which
k1,...kn appear, instead of query all indexed documents and apply the
ranking function (which will give weight to documents that contains
k1...kn).
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-do-I-make-sure
the
ranking function (which will give weight to documents that contains
k1...kn).
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-do-I-make-sure-the-resulting-documents-contain-the-query-terms-tp3031637p3033451.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive
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
You are right, Lucene will return based on my scoring function
implementation (Similarity
classhttp://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_2/api/all/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html
):
score(q,d) =
Okay, if you're using a custom similarity, I'm not sure what's going on,
I'm not familiar with that.
But ordinarily, you are right, you would require k1 with +k1.
What you say about the + being lost suggests something is going wrong.
Either you are not sending your query to Solr properly
Hello,
I've seen that through boosting it's possible to influence the scoring
function, but what I would like is sort of a boolean property. In some way
it's to search only the indexed documents by that keyword (or the
intersection/union) rather than the whole set.
Is this supported in any way?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're driving at, can
you provide some examples? This *looks* like filter queries,
but I think you already know about those...
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Gabriele Kahlout
gabri...@mysimpatico.com wrote:
Hello,
I've seen that through
