Doug's requirement could be implemented :
1) index title length as an additional field ( may be via
CountFieldValuesUpdateProcessorFactory?)
Title: [solr] [the] [worlds] [greatest] [search] [engine]
title_length = 6
2) Compute query length at client side. applye percentage etc and use if in
fil
I still think this is one of the best ideas that someone has come up with
in years.
In many ways it would be used in most queries if anyone wanted to look at
the field indexes or the query parsed and get better results.
Maybe people are not talking about it because mm=1, mm=0 is still overly
conf
Morning Doug,
it sounds like you can encode norm as the number of term positions in the
title (assuming it's single value).
When you search, SpanQuery can access particular positions of the matched
terms, and then compare them to the number of terms decoded from the norm.
It's sounds more like hac
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Doug Turnbull
> Sent: 11/22/2013 4:05 PM
> To: Erik Hatcher; solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Reverse mm(min-should-match)
> Hmm... Not necessarily. I'd be happy with any ordering for now. Though
> some notion of order and slop would be ni
/2013 4:05 PM
To: Erik Hatcher; solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reverse mm(min-should-match)
Hmm... Not necessarily. I'd be happy with any ordering for now. Though
some notion of order and slop would be nice in the future
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Erik Hatcher
Sent: 11/22/2013
Hmm... Not necessarily. I'd be happy with any ordering for now. Though
some notion of order and slop would be nice in the future
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Erik Hatcher
Sent: 11/22/2013 3:32 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reverse mm(min-should-match)
Does order m
Does order matter?By "exact" you mean the same tokens in the same positions?
Erik
On Nov 22, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Doug Turnbull
wrote:
> Instead of specifying a percentage or number of query terms must match
> tokens in a field, I'd like to do the opposite -- specify how much of a
> f
This is an awesome idea!
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Doug Turnbull
> wrote:
>
> Instead of specifying a percentage or number of query terms must match
> tokens in a field, I'd like to do the opposite -- specify how much of a
> field must match a query.
>
> The problem I'
