Jack due to 'some' reason my nutch is returning me index time boost =0.0
and just for a moment suppose that nutch is and will always return boost =0.

Now my simple question was why Solr is showing me document's score = 0 ?
Why is it depending upon index time boost value ? Why or how to make Solr
to only calculate the score value on TF-IDF ?

Regards,
Khan


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jack Krupansky <j...@basetechnology.com>wrote:

> Simple math: x times zero equals zero.
>
> That's why the default document boost is 1.0 - score times 1.0 equals
> score.
>
> Any particular reason you wanted to zero out the document score from the
> document level?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Tony Mullins
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:23 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Calculating Solr document score by ignoring the  field.
>
>
> I am passing boost value (via nutch) and i.e boost =0.0.
> But my question is why Solr is showing me score = 0.0 when my boost (index
> time boost) = 0.0 ?
> Should not Solr calculate its documents score on the basis of TF-IDF ? And
> if not how can I make Solr to only consider TF-IDF while calculating
> document's score ?
>
> Regards,
> Khan
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>**
> wrote:
>
>  My guess is that you're not really passing on the boost field's value
>> and getting the default. Don't quite know how I'd track that down
>> though....
>>
>> Best
>> Erick
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:09 AM, imran khan <imrankhan.x...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > I am using nutch 2.x as my datasource for Solr 4.3.0. And nutch passes
>> > on
>> > its own <boost> field to my Solr schema
>> >
>> > <field name="boost" type="float" stored="true" indexed="false"/>
>> >
>> > Now due to some reason I always get <boost> = 0.0 and due to this my
>> Solr's
>> > document score is also always 0.0.
>> >
>> > Is there any way in Solr that it ignores the <boost> field's value for
>> its
>> > document's score calculation ?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Khan
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to