Re: Query structure

This was the solution. Thank you! - Original Message - From: "Maciej Ł. PCSS" <labed...@man.poznan.pl> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:57:05 AM Subject: Re: Query structure You should be able to put 'facetMetatag

Re: Query structure

You should be able to put 'facetMetatagDatePrefix4:2015 OR facetMetatagDatePrefix4:2016' into the filtering query. Maciej W dniu 01.02.2017 o 13:43, KRIS MUSSHORN pisze: I really need some guidance on this query structure issue. I've got to get this solved today for my employer. "He

Re: Query structure

Why not use filtering query? I mean the 'fq' param. Regards Maciej W dniu 01.02.2017 o 13:43, KRIS MUSSHORN pisze: I really need some guidance on this query structure issue. I've got to get this solved today for my employer. "Help me Obiwan. Your my only hope" K - Origin

Re: Query structure

I really need some guidance on this query structure issue. I've got to get this solved today for my employer. "Help me Obiwan. Your my only hope" K - Original Message - From: "KRIS MUSSHORN" <mussho...@comcast.net> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Sent:

Query structure

I have a defaultSearchField and facetMetatagDatePrefix4 fields that are correctly populated with values in SOLR 5.4.1. if execute this query q=defaultSearchField:this text I get the 7 docs that match. Their are three docs in 2015 and one doc in 2016 per the facet counts in the results. If I

Re: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable across multiple searches with the same query structure?

On 4/11/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Not really. The explain scores aren't normalized and I also couldn't : find a way to get the explain data as anything other than a whitespace : formatted text blob from Solr. Keep in mind that they need confidence the defualt way Solr

Re: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable across multiple searches with the same query structure?

Yes, for good (hopefully) or bad. -Sean Shridhar Venkatraman wrote on 5/7/2007, 12:37 AM: Interesting.. Surrogates can also bring the searcher's subjectivity (opinion and context) into it by the learning process ? shridhar Sean Timm wrote: It may not be easy or even possible

Re: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable across multiple searches with the same query structure?

Interesting.. Surrogates can also bring the searcher's subjectivity (opinion and context) into it by the learning process ? shridhar Sean Timm wrote: It may not be easy or even possible without major changes, but having global collection statistics would allow scores to be compared across

Re: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable across multiple searches with the same query structure?

On 4/11/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A custom Similaity class with simplified tf, idf, and queryNorm functions might also help you get scores from the Explain method that are more easily manageable since you'll have predictible query structures hard coded into your application.

Re: Ideas for a relevance score that could be considered stable across multiple searches with the same query structure?

It may not be easy or even possible without major changes, but having global collection statistics would allow scores to be compared across searchers. To do this, the master indexes would need to be able to communicate with each other. An other approach to merging across searchers is