For the record, I solved this problem by removing stop words in my analyzer for wordfield.
We often get this problem where there is stop words discrepancies between fields. Le jeu. 16 nov. 2023 à 09:28, elisabeth benoit <elisaelisael...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Thanks a lot for taking time to answer. > > I'll have to figure out a work around, decreasing mm is not an option for > me, maybe use a boost for this extra field. > > Best regards, > Elisabeth > > Le mar. 14 nov. 2023 à 12:05, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> a écrit : > >> Ok. Right >> (one two three four five six seven)~7 means match all of them ie in fact >> +one >> +two +three +four +five +six +seven >> Here we can see that how dismax handles fields with different analyzers is >> far from perfection. >> You can either decrease mm >> >> https://solr.apache.org/guide/6_6/the-dismax-query-parser.html#TheDisMaxQueryParser-Themm_MinimumShouldMatch_Parameter >> or experiment with mm.autoRelax=true >> >> https://solr.apache.org/guide/6_6/the-extended-dismax-query-parser.html#TheExtendedDisMaxQueryParser-Themm.autoRelaxParameter >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 10:33 PM elisabeth benoit < >> elisaelisael...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > okay, thanks, for the answer. the thing is >> > >> > when there is no *wordf**ield* in the *qf* param, but only *edgefield1* >> and >> > *edgefield2*, I get this parsedQuery >> > >> > parsedQuery = >> > +(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:musee)^1.1 | edgefield2:musee)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:maillol)^1.1 | edgefield2:maillol)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:61)^1.1 | edgefield2:61)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:r)^1.1 | edgefield2:r)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:grenelle)^1.1 | edgefield2:grenelle)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:75007)^1.1 | edgefield2:75007)) >> > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:paris)^1.1 | edgefield2:paris)))~7 >> > >> > and SolR does return documents >> > >> > but when I have instead* wordf**ield* and *edgefield* in *qf*, I get >> this >> > parsedQuery >> > >> > parsedQuery = >> > > "+DisjunctionMaxQuery((((wordfield:musee wordfield:maillol >> wordfield:61 >> > > Synonym(wordfield:r wordfield:ru wordfield:rue) wordfield:grenelle >> > > wordfield:75007 wordfield:paris)~7)^1.1 | ((edgefield:musee >> > > edgefield:maillol >> > > edgefield:61 edgefield:r edgefield:grenelle edgefield:75007 >> > > edgefield:paris)~7)))" >> > >> > and SolR does not return any documents. >> > >> > That is what makes me thing there is something wrong with the second >> > parsedQuery. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Elisabeth >> > >> > >> > >> > Le lun. 13 nov. 2023 à 20:15, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> a >> écrit : >> > >> > > > >> > > > the first case listed in my mail >> > > > parsedQuery = >> > > > "+DisjunctionMaxQuery((((wordfield:musee wordfield:maillol >> > wordfield:61 >> > > > Synonym(wordfield:r wordfield:ru wordfield:rue) wordfield:grenelle >> > > > wordfield:75007 wordfield:paris)~7)^1.1 | ((edgefield:musee >> > > > edgefield:maillol >> > > > edgefield:61 edgefield:r edgefield:grenelle edgefield:75007 >> > > > edgefield:paris)~7)))" >> > > >> > > >> > > > The OR is different, it is all words must match wordfield OR all >> words >> > > must >> > > > match edgefield, but no mix between the two fields are allowed. >> > > >> > > >> > > It doesn't work this way. These two queries differs only in >> > scoring/results >> > > ordering. i.e >> > > this query matches docs: {wordfield:musee, edgefield:musee} as well >> as { >> > > wordfield:musee,edgefield:maillol}, {wordfield:musee}, { >> > > edgefield:maillol}. >> > > This explanation might be useful >> > > https://lucidworks.com/post/solr-boolean-operators/ >> > > Note: DisMax works like OR/| but takes max instead of sum as a score. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 7:21 PM elisabeth benoit < >> > > elisaelisael...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hello, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for your answer. >> > > > >> > > > I mean that in the second case listed in my mail, the query is >> > > > parsedQuery = >> > > > +(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:musee)^1.1 | edgefield2:musee)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:maillol)^1.1 | >> edgefield2:maillol)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:61)^1.1 | edgefield2:61)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:r)^1.1 | edgefield2:r)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:grenelle)^1.1 | >> edgefield2:grenelle)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:75007)^1.1 | edgefield2:75007)) >> > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:paris)^1.1 | edgefield2:paris)))~7 >> > > > >> > > > and so the way I read it is "musee" can match edgefield1 OR >> edgefield2, >> > > > "maillol" can match edgefield1 OR edgefield2, and so on, so solr can >> > > return >> > > > a doc where some query words match with edgefield1 and some other >> query >> > > > words with edgefield2. >> > > > >> > > > But in the first case listed in my mail >> > > > >> > > > parsedQuery = >> > > > "+DisjunctionMaxQuery((((wordfield:musee wordfield:maillol >> > wordfield:61 >> > > > Synonym(wordfield:r wordfield:ru wordfield:rue) wordfield:grenelle >> > > > wordfield:75007 wordfield:paris)~7)^1.1 | ((edgefield:musee >> > > > edgefield:maillol >> > > > edgefield:61 edgefield:r edgefield:grenelle edgefield:75007 >> > > > edgefield:paris)~7)))" >> > > > >> > > > The OR is different, it is all words must match wordfield OR all >> words >> > > must >> > > > match edgefield, but no mix between the two fields are allowed. >> > > > >> > > > So I cannot search both fields at the same time. >> > > > >> > > > I hope this is clear! >> > > > >> > > > I would like to search both fields in same query. >> > > > >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Elisabeth >> > > > >> > > > Le lun. 13 nov. 2023 à 17:02, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> a >> > > écrit : >> > > > >> > > > > Hello Elisabeth. >> > > > > DisMax analyses user input across the given qf fields. If the >> number >> > of >> > > > > resulting tokens are different it can't apply defaults logic - per >> > word >> > > > sum >> > > > > over per field maximums; and flips to max over sums. The good >> news is >> > > > that >> > > > > the difference between two approaches is only scoring. >> > > > > WDYM exactly by absence of "matching words to be in two different >> > > > fields"? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:01 PM elisabeth benoit < >> > > > > elisaelisael...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am using solr 7.3.1 with ExtendedDismaxQParser. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have a edgengrams field and a normal text field. When I mix >> those >> > > two >> > > > > in >> > > > > > the same query, ie *qf=edgefield wordfield* and use option >> > > > > *debugQuery=on*, >> > > > > > I see that the parsedQuery is different, ie all words should >> match >> > > the >> > > > > same >> > > > > > field. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ie parsedQuery = >> > > > > > >> > > > > > "+DisjunctionMaxQuery((((wordfield:musee wordfield:maillol >> > > wordfield:61 >> > > > > > Synonym(wordfield:r wordfield:ru wordfield:rue) >> wordfield:grenelle >> > > > > > wordfield >> > > > > > :75007 wordfield:paris)~7)^1.1 | ((edgefield:musee >> > edgefield:maillol >> > > > > > edgefield:61 edgefield:r edgefield:grenelle edgefield:75007 >> > edgefield >> > > > > > :paris)~7)))" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > When instead I use two edgefields with *qf=**edgefield1 >> > **edgefield2* >> > > > > > >> > > > > > parsedQuery = >> > > > > > +(DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:musee)^1.1 | >> edgefield2:musee)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:maillol)^1.1 | >> > edgefield2:maillol)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:61)^1.1 | edgefield2:61)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:r)^1.1 | edgefield2:r)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:grenelle)^1.1 | >> > > edgefield2:grenelle)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:75007)^1.1 | edgefield2:75007)) >> > > > > > DisjunctionMaxQuery(((edgefield1:paris)^1.1 | >> edgefield2:paris)))~7 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In the second case, edismax allows matching words to be in two >> > > > different >> > > > > > fields, but not in first case. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there a way to have the same behaviour, ie case two, in all >> > cases? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > best regards, >> > > > > > Elisabeth >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Sincerely yours >> > > > > Mikhail Khludnev >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Sincerely yours >> > > Mikhail Khludnev >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Sincerely yours >> Mikhail Khludnev >> >
