I am confused, wouldn't a doc that match both the phrase and the term queries have a better score than a doc matching only the term score, even if qf and pf are the same??
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > There'd be no point having them the same. > > You're likely to include boosts in your pf, so that docs that match the > phrase query as well as the term query score higher than those that just > match the term query. > > Such as: > > qf=text description&pf=text^2 description^4 > > Upayavira > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013, at 05:44 PM, Amit Nithian wrote: > > Thanks Erick. Numeric fields make sense as I guess would strictly string > > fields too since its one term? In the normal text searching case though > > does it make sense to have qf and pf differ? > > > > Thanks > > Amit > > On Oct 28, 2013 3:36 AM, "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The facetious answer is "when phrases aren't important in the fields". > > > If you're doing a simple boolean match, adding phrase fields will add > > > expense, to no good purpose etc. Phrases on numeric > > > fields seems wrong. > > > > > > FWIW, > > > Erick > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Amit Nithian <anith...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I have been using Solr for years but never really stopped to wonder: > > > > > > > > When using the dismax/edismax handler, when do you have the qf > different > > > > from the pf? > > > > > > > > I have always set them to be the same (maybe different weights) but > I was > > > > wondering if there is a situation where you would have a field in > the qf > > > > not in the pf or vice versa. > > > > > > > > My understanding from the docs is that qf is a term-wise hard filter > > > while > > > > pf is a phrase-wise boost of documents who made it past the "qf" > filter. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Amit > > > > > > > >
