I’ve done something similar to this using the the EdgeNGram not the
spellchecker component, I don’t know if this is along with your requirements:
The relevant portion of my fieldType config:
class="solr.SpellCheckComponent">
>
>
Alexander,
You could use a higher value for spellcheck.count, maybe 20 or so, then in your
application pick out the suggestions that make changes on the right side.
Another option is to use DirectSolrSpellChecker (usually a better choice
anyhow) and set the "minPrefix" field. This will require
gramcontent.com]
Sent: August-20-14 9:37 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Spellchecking suggestions won't collate
Because "my" is the 7th suggestion down the list, it is going to need more than
30 tries to figure out the one that can give some hits. You can increase
Because "my" is the 7th suggestion down the list, it is going to need more than
30 tries to figure out the one that can give some hits. You can increase
"maxCollationTries" if you're willing to endure the performance penalty of
trying so many replacement queries. This case actually highlights
lto:fied...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 10:15 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spellchecking - looking for general advice
Hi
I've set it to 2, but python implementation of Levenshtein says its 3 for
restraunt -> restaurant.
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Sushe
Hi
I've set it to 2, but python implementation of Levenshtein says its 3
for restraunt -> restaurant.
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Susheel Kumar
wrote:
> How much is the maxEdits you have set. It should catch restaurant example
> with edit distance set to 2.
>
> Thanks,
> Susheel
>
> -Or
How much is the maxEdits you have set. It should catch restaurant example with
edit distance set to 2.
Thanks,
Susheel
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Dziardziel [mailto:fied...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:05 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Spellchecking - looking
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: Gastone Penzo [mailto:gastone.pe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:38 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spellchecking problem
Thank you for your answer.
this is the querystring
http://seshat:9000/solr/browse/?q=otto+maialot
Thank you for your answer.
this is the querystring
http://seshat:9000/solr/browse/?q=otto+maialotto&fq=shelf:GIO&qf=ean^0
title^0.0035 authors^0 publisher^0 series^0 contributors^0 characters^0
manufacturer^0 actors^0 directors^0 tags^0 category_label^0 &pf=ean^0
title^0.0035 authors^0 publisher^
If you are using "spellcheck.maxCollateTries" with a value greater than 0 the
*collatation* section of your spellcheck response will give query corrections
that are proven to produce hits. Possibly you were looking at the first
section where it gives individual word suggestions? Or maybe one o
Thank you!!
2013/9/20 Dyer, James
> If you're using "spellcheck.collate" you can also set
> "spellcheck.maxCollationTries" to validate each collation against the index
> before suggesting it. This validation takes into account any "fq"
> parameters on your query, so if your original query ha
If you're using "spellcheck.collate" you can also set
"spellcheck.maxCollationTries" to validate each collation against the index
before suggesting it. This validation takes into account any "fq" parameters
on your query, so if your original query has "fq=Product:Book", then the
collations ret
Thanks Otis and Luke.
Yes it does make sense to spellcheck phrases in Chinese. Looks like the
default Solr spellCheck component is already doing some kind of NGram-ing.
When examining the spellCheck index, I did see gram1, gram2, gram3, gram4...
The problem is no Chinese terms were indexed into th
It doesn't make sense to spell check individual character sized words,
but makes a lot of sense for phrases. Due to pervasive use of pinyin
IM, it's very easy to write phrases that are totally wrong in
semantics and but "sounds" correct. n-gram should work if it doesn't
mangle the characters.
On T
Hi,
Does spellchecking in Chinese actually make sense? I once asked a native
Chinese speaker about that and the person told me it didn't really make sense.
Anyhow, with n-grams, I don't think this could technically work even if it made
sense for Chinese, could it?
Otis
Sematext :: http://
Apologies for the duplicate post. I'm having Evolution problems
> Thanks Chris,
>
> The field used for indexing and spellcheck is the same and is
> configured like this:..
>
>
> class="solr.TextField" >
>
>
> ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/>
>
>
Thanks Chris,
The field used for indexing and spellcheck is the same and is configured
like this:..
I use the pattern replace filter to swap all instances of "!" within a
word to "i". I know this part is working correctly as
Thanks Chris,
The field used for indexing and spellcheck is the same and is configured
like this:..
I use the pattern replace filter to swap all instances of "!" within a
word to "i". I know this part is working correctly as
: I'm having an issue performing a spellcheck on some information and
: search of the archive isn't helping.
For this type of quesiton, there's not much feedback anyone can offer w/o
knowing exactly what analyzers you have configured for hte various
fieldtypes (both the field you index/search a
You have to correct the misspelled terms in your content to work properly
because spell checker will find the term and supposed as right term.
spell checker will return suggestion when word not found in its dictionary.
-
Thanx:
Grijesh
http://lucidimagination.com
--
View this message in co
Add spellcheck.onlyMorePopular=true to your query and I think it'll do what you
want. See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#spellcheck.onlyMorePopular for
more info.
One caveat is if you use spellcheck.collate, this will likely result in
useless, nonsensical collations most of t
I therefore wrote an implementation of SolrSpellChecker that wraps jazzy,
the java aspell library. I also extended the SpellCheckComponent to take
the
matrix of suggested words and query the corpus to find the first
combination
of suggestions which returned a match. This works well for my use ca
Hi Mark,
Thanks for that info looks very interesting, would be great to see your
code. Out of interest did you use the dictionary and the phonetic file? Did
you see better results with both?
In regards to the secondary part to check the corpus for matching
suggestions, would another way to do thi
"Yonik's Law of Patches" reads: "A half-baked patch in Jira, with no
documentation, no tests and no backwards compatibilty is better than no
patch at all."
It'd be perfectly appropriate, IMO, for you to post an outline of what your
enhancements do over on the SOLR dev list and get a reaction from
ike
to see yours to compare.
James Dyer
E-Commerce Systems
Ingram Book Company
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: Mark Holland [mailto:mark.holl...@zoopla.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spellchecking and frequency
Hi,
I
Hi,
I found the suggestions returned from the standard solr spellcheck not to be
that relevant. By contrast, aspell, given the same dictionary and mispelled
words, gives much more accurate suggestions.
I therefore wrote an implementation of SolrSpellChecker that wraps jazzy,
the java aspell libra
Hi,
thanks, exactly that i forgot. Now it works fine. :-)
Am 03.05.2010 16:50, schrieb Michael Kuhlmann:
Am 03.05.2010 16:43, schrieb Jan Kammer:
Hi,
It worked fine with a normal field. There must something wrong with
copyfield, or why does dataimporthandler add/update no more documents?
Am 03.05.2010 16:43, schrieb Jan Kammer:
> Hi,
>
> It worked fine with a normal field. There must something wrong with
> copyfield, or why does dataimporthandler add/update no more documents?
Did you define your destination field as multivalue?
-Michael
uest.
Regards,
Gert.
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kammer [mailto:jan.kam...@mni.fh-giessen.de]
Sent: Montag, 3. Mai 2010 16:26
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SpellChecking
Hi,
if I define one of my normal fields from schema.xml in solrconfig.xml
for spellchecking all works
.
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kammer [mailto:jan.kam...@mni.fh-giessen.de]
Sent: Montag, 3. Mai 2010 16:26
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SpellChecking
Hi,
if I define one of my normal fields from schema.xml in solrconfig.xml
for spellchecking all works fine:
...
That didnt
Hi,
if I define one of my normal fields from schema.xml in solrconfig.xml
for spellchecking all works fine:
...
That didnt work, because nothing was in "spell" after that.
Next try was to copy each field in a line to "spell":
...
This does work up to 3 documents, if i define more, the c
It would help a lot to see your actual config file, and if you provided a
bit more
detail about what failure looks like
Best
Erick
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jan Kammer wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I want to enable spellchecking, but i got many fields.
>
> I tried around with copyfield to cop
Another thing you might check into is stemming. The Porter stemmer
included in Solr is "aggressive", meaning that it will tend to do
weird things with misspellings. There is a different stemmer called
KStem which is available from www.lucidimagination.com/Downloads is
less aggressive. Porter turns
Character-based NGrams are a good tool for this problem. MLT is a
document-wide numerical analysis.
If the common types of OCR mistakes are different than what NGrams
create, you might tune the ngram generator. For example, swapping
letters might not happen very often. SIngle- and multi-word error
: My first problem appears because I need suggestions inclusive when the
: expression has returned results. It's seems that only appear
: suggestions when there are no results. Is there a way to do so?
can you give us an example of what your queries look like? with the
example configs, i can ge
and the caveat that all fields would need to be declared in the
solrconfig.xml (or get used for both fields)
this could work... would also need to augment the response with the
name of the dictionary, or assert that something will be written all
the time (so you could know the 2nd would b
Another thought that might work:
Declare two separate components, one for each field and then implement
a QueryConverter that takes in the field and only extracts the tokens
for the field or choice.
This is a definite workaround, but I think it might work. Hmm, except
we only have one Qu
One way would be to create a copyField containing both the fields and use it
as the dictionary's source.
If you do want to keep separate dictionaries for both the fields then I
guess we can introduce per-dictionary overridable parameters like the
per-field overridden facet parameters. That would b
38 matches
Mail list logo
