Erick, Thanks. I know I'll be able to utilize some of Solr's free text searching capabilities in other search types in this project. The product manager wants this particular search to exactly mimic LIKE%.
N-Grams get me pretty great results in general, but I don't want the results for this particular search to be fuzzy. How can I prevent the fuzzy matches from appearing? Ex: If I search "Albatross" I want "Albert" to be excluded completely, rather than having a low score. Devon Baumgarten -----Original Message----- From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:44 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Solr, SQL Server's LIKE SQLs "like" is usually handled with ngrams if you want *stuff* kinds of searches. Wildcards are "interesting" in Solr. Things Solr handles that aren't easy in SQL Phrases, phrases with slop, stemming, synonyms. And, especially, some kind of relevance ranking. But Solr does NOT do the things SQL is best at, things like joins etc. Each has it's sweet spot and trying to make one do all the functions of the other is fraught with places to go wrong. Not a lot of help, but free text searching is what Solr is all about, so if your problem maps into that space, it's a great tool! Best Erick On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Shashi Kant <sk...@sloan.mit.edu> wrote: > for a simple, hackish (albeit inefficient) approach look up wildcard searchers > > e,g foo*, *bar > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Devon Baumgarten > <dbaumgar...@nationalcorp.com> wrote: >> I have been tinkering with Solr for a few weeks, and I am convinced that it >> could be very helpful in many of my upcoming projects. I am trying to decide >> whether Solr is appropriate for this one, and I haven't had luck looking for >> answers on Google. >> >> I need to search a list of names of companies and individuals pretty >> exactly. T-SQL's LIKE operator does this with decent performance, but I have >> a feeling there is a way to configure Solr to do this better. I've tried >> using an edge N-gram tokenizer, but it feels like it might be more >> complicated than necessary. What would you suggest? >> >> I know this sounds kind of 'Golden Hammer,' but there has been talk of >> other, more complicated (magic) searches that I don't think SQL Server can >> handle, since its tokens (as far as I know) can't be smaller than one word. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Devon Baumgarten >>
