I'm running the example Solr install with a custom schema.xml and solrconfig.xml. I'm seeing some unexpected results for searches using the SpellCheckerRequestHandler using the onlyMorePopular option. Namely, searching for certain terms with onlyMorePopular set to true returns a suggestion which, when searched for in turn itself, returns a suggestion back to the original term.

For example, a query such as:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/? q=Eft&qt=spellchecker&onlyMorePopular=true

returns:

<response>
−
        <lst name="responseHeader">
<int name="status">0</int>
<int name="QTime">2</int>
</lst>
−
        <arr name="suggestions">
<str>oft</str>
</arr>
</response>

And a query for
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/? q=oft&qt=spellchecker&onlyMorePopular=true
<response>
−
        <lst name="responseHeader">
<int name="status">0</int>
<int name="QTime">2</int>
</lst>
−
        <arr name="suggestions">
<str>Eft</str>
</arr>
</response>

It seems that "onlyMorePopular" should be an asymmetric relation. I thought perhaps it might actually be implemented as a >= instead of a strict >, making it antisymmetric and perhaps explaining this result as a popularity tie. However, taking a clean copy of the example install, adding entries into the spellchecker.xml file, then inserting and rebuilding the index results in onlyMorePopular cross- recommendations as above even when I've created a clear popularity inequality between similar terms (e.g. adding two docs with word="blackkerry" makes it more popular than the existing "blackberry" doc, but each is suggested for the other).

I checked the defaults list for the spellchecker requestHandler in my solrconfig.xml, and it didn't specify a value for onlyMorePopular. I added a default value of true and restarted Solr, but that has no effect. I've also tried using Luke to inspect the spell index, but I'm not sure exactly what to look for. I'd be more than happy to provide any details which might assist others in lending their expertise. Any insights would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
Justin Knoll

Reply via email to