[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15039772#comment-15039772
]
Erick Erickson edited comment on SOLR-2649 at 12/4/15 5:29 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
[~gpendleb] OK, we're using the same patch which was what I wanted to be sure
of. Sorry for the mis-attribution.
Regardless of what we call it, my questions are:
1> Are we going to include this change in 5.4.x? I have no intention of doing
so, that ship has already sailed.
2> Does this change behavior that we've supported in the past?
2a> If "yes", then we need to concern ourselves with back-compat and it's
arguable whether this should be put in 5.x. It seems that it's better behavior
than it was before, so perhaps documentation will be sufficient.
2b> If "no", then we're free to put this in both trunk and 5x (5.5 if one comes
out) if we think the behavior is better with this patch. Still add a note to
CHANGES.txt, along with the issue...
I'm tending at this point to put it in the 5x code line and make a point of
this change in CHANGES.txt as I think it's a change that'll be seen as
positive. I'm not wedded to the idea though.
was (Author: erickerickson):
[~gpendleb] OK, we're using the same patch which was what I wanted to be sure
of. Sorry for the mis-attribution.
Regardless of what we call it, my questions are:
1> Are we going to include this change in a point release, i.e. 5.4.x? I have
no intention of doing so, that ship has already sailed.
2> Does this change behavior that we've supported in the past?
2a> If "yes", then we need to concern ourselves with back-compat and it's
arguable whether this should be put in 5.x. It seems that it's better behavior
than it was before, so perhaps documentation will be sufficient.
2b> If "no", then we're free to put this in both trunk and 5x (5.5 if one comes
out) if we think the behavior is better with this patch. Still add a note to
CHANGES.txt, along with the issue...
I'm tending at this point to put it in the 5x code line and make a point of
this change in CHANGES.txt as I think it's a change that'll be seen as
positive. I'm not wedded to the idea though.
> MM ignored in edismax queries with operators
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-2649
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2649
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: query parsers
> Reporter: Magnus Bergmark
> Assignee: Erick Erickson
> Fix For: 4.9, Trunk
>
> Attachments: SOLR-2649-with-Qop.patch, SOLR-2649-with-Qop.patch,
> SOLR-2649.diff, SOLR-2649.patch
>
>
> Hypothetical scenario:
> 1. User searches for "stocks oil gold" with MM set to "50%"
> 2. User adds "-stockings" to the query: "stocks oil gold -stockings"
> 3. User gets no hits since MM was ignored and all terms where AND-ed
> together
> The behavior seems to be intentional, although the reason why is never
> explained:
> // For correct lucene queries, turn off mm processing if there
> // were explicit operators (except for AND).
> boolean doMinMatched = (numOR + numNOT + numPluses + numMinuses) == 0;
> (lines 232-234 taken from
> tags/lucene_solr_3_3/solr/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/ExtendedDismaxQParserPlugin.java)
> This makes edismax unsuitable as an replacement to dismax; mm is one of the
> primary features of dismax.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
