John,
How do you suppose to match any of "parsed_filter_queries":["
MultiPhraseQuery(manufacturer_syn_both:\"(vendor_vendor_us vendor)
vendor\")", "PhraseQuery(manufacturer_split_syn:\"vendor vendor\")"
against
vendor_coolmed | coolmed | vendor ?
I just can't see any chance to match them.
One possible strategy is pick the simplest filter query, put it as a main
query.
Then pass &expainOther=id:<expected> and share the explanation.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:57 PM, John Blythe <j...@curvolabs.com> wrote:
> hi, erick.
>
> appreciate the feedback.
>
> 1> i'm sending the terms to solr enquoted
> 2> i'd thought that at one point and reran the indexing. i _had_ had two of
> the fields not indexed, but this represented one pass (same analyzer) from
> two diff source fields while 2 or 3 of the other 4 fields _were_ seeming as
> if they should match. maybe just need to do this for said sanity at this
> point lol
> 3> i'm using dismax, no mm param set
>
> some further context:
>
> i'm querying something like this: ...fq=manufacturer:("VENDOR:VENDOR US")
> OR manufacturer_syn:("VENDOR:VENDOR US")...
>
> The indexed value is: "Vendor"
>
> the output of field 1 in the Analysis tab would be:
> *index*: vendor_coolmed | coolmed | vendor
> *query*: vendor_vendor_coolmed | vendor | vendor
>
> the other field (and a couple other, related ones, actually) have similar
> situations where I see a clear match (as well as get the confirmation of it
> when switching to the old UI and seeing the highlighting) yet get no
> results in my actual query.
>
> a further note. when i get the query debugging enabled I can see this in
> the output:
> "filter_queries":["manufacturer_syn_both:\"Vendor:Vendor US\"",
> "manufacturer_split_syn:(\"Vendor:Vendor US\")"],
> "parsed_filter_queries":["
> MultiPhraseQuery(manufacturer_syn_both:\"(vendor_vendor_us vendor)
> vendor\")", "PhraseQuery(manufacturer_split_syn:\"vendor vendor\")"],...
>
> It looks as if the parsed query is wrapped in quotes even after having been
> parsed, so while the correct tokens, i.e. "vendor", are present to match
> against the indexed value, the fact that the entire parsed derivative of
> the initial query is sent to match (if that's indeed what's happening)
> won't actually get any hits. Yet if I remove the quotes when sending over
> to query then the parsing doesn't get to a point of having any
> worthwhile/matching tokens to begin with.
>
> one last thing: i've attempted with just "vendor" being sent over to help
> remove complexity and, once more, i see Analysis chain functioning just
> fine but the query itself getting 0 hits.
>
> think TermComponents is the best option at this point or something else
> given the above filler info?
>
> --
> *John Blythe*
> Product Manager & Lead Developer
>
> 251.605.3071 | j...@curvolabs.com
> www.curvolabs.com
>
> 58 Adams Ave
> Evansville, IN 47713
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > &debug=query is your friend. There are several issues that often trip
> > people up:
> >
> > 1> The analysis tab pre-supposes that what you put in the boxes gets
> > all the way to the field in question. Trivial example:
> > I put (without quotes) "erick erickson" in the "name" field in the
> > analysis page and see that it gets tokenized correctly. But the query
> > "name:erick erickson" actually gets parsed at a higher level into
> > name:erick default_search_field:erickson. See the discussion at:
> > SOLR-9185
> >
> > 2> what you think is in your indexed field isn't really. Can happen if
> > you changed your analysis chain but didn't totally re-index. Can
> > happen because one of the parts of the analysis chain works
> > differently than you expect (WordDelimiterFilterFactory, for instance,
> > has a ton of options that can alter the tokens emitted). The
> > TermsComponent will let you examine the terms actually _in_ the index
> > that you search on. You stated that the analysis page shows you what
> > you expect, so this is a sanity check.
> >
> > 3> You're using edismax and setting some parameter, mm=100% is a
> > favorite and it's having this effect.
> >
> > So add debug=query and provide a sample document (or just a field) and
> > the schema definition for the field in question if you're still
> > stumped.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:35 AM, John Blythe <j...@curvolabs.com> wrote:
> > > hi everyone.
> > >
> > > i recently wrote in ('analysis matching, query not') but never heard
> back
> > > so wanted to follow up. i'm at my wit's end currently. i have several
> > > fields that are showing matches in the analysis tab. when i dumb down
> the
> > > string sent over to query it still gives me issues in some field cases.
> > >
> > > any thoughts on how to debug to figure out wtf is going on here would
> be
> > > greatly appreciated. the use case is straightforward and the solution
> > > should be as well, so i'm at a loss as to how in the world i'm having
> > > issues w this.
> > >
> > > can provide any amount of contextualizing information you need, just
> let
> > me
> > > know what could be beneficial.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > john
> >
>
--
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
