: extending edismax. Perhaps when F: does not match a given field, it
: could auto escape the rest of the word?
that's actually what yonik initially said it was suppose to do, but when i
tried to add a param to let you control which fields would be supported
using the : syntax i discovered it
ah -- that makes sense.
Yonik... looks like you were assigned to it last week -- should I take
a look, or do you already have something in the works?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: extending edismax. Perhaps when F: does not match a given
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: extending edismax. Perhaps when F: does not match a given field, it
: could auto escape the rest of the word?
that's actually what yonik initially said it was suppose to do
Hmmm, not really.
essentially that
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
ah -- that makes sense.
Yonik... looks like you were assigned to it last week -- should I take
a look, or do you already have something in the works?
I got busy on other things, and don't have anything in the works.
I
: essentially that FOO:BAR and FOO\:BAR would be equivalent if FOO is
: not the name of a real field according to the IndexSchema
:
: That part is true, but doesn't say anything about escaping. And for
: some unknown reason, this no longer works.
that's the only part i was refering to.
-Hoss
foo_s:foo\-bar
is a valid lucene query (with only a dash between the foo and the
bar), and presumably it should be treated the same in edismax.
Treating it as foo_s:foo\\-bar (a backslash and a dash between foo and
bar) might cause more problems than it's worth?
I don't think we should
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
foo_s:foo\-bar
is a valid lucene query (with only a dash between the foo and the
bar), and presumably it should be treated the same in edismax.
Treating it as foo_s:foo\\-bar (a backslash and a dash between foo and
bar)
