On 11/7/06, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Adding a phonetic token filter and relying on the per-field analyzer
> support.
>
> Option 2 seems like it would be a lot faster in production, and
> probably easier to implement. Does that seem right?
I'm not sure why any modification to solr would be necessary. You
could add a field with a phonetic analyzer and use copyField to copy
your search fields to it. Search will use the modified analyzer
automatically.
I assumed he meant the implementation of the filter/analyzer itself
(unless there is already a Lucene filter we can use). Unless there is
a lucene analyzer (which can be used directly), a FilterFactory for
the filter will have to be added, but that's easy.
> How do I specify the new token filter factory in the schema file?
> I don't quite get the mapping from solr.FooFilterFactory to
> org.apache.solr.analysis.FooFilterFactory.
When Solr was an internal CNET project, the package name was just solr
(or actually, just solar). I kept the short version as a form of
backward compatibility, and I sort of liked it because it made the
schema less verbose.
Anyway there is a set of standard packages that will be checked if
the class name isn't found as-is. I thought it was documented but I
can't seem to find it...
-Yonik
