Move the synonym filter to the index analyzer chain. That provides better 
performance and avoids some surprising relevance behavior. With synonyms at 
query time, you’ll see different idf for terms in the synonym set, with the 
rare variant scoring higher. That is probably the opposite of what is expected.

Also, phrase synonyms just don’t work at query time because the terms are 
parsed into individual tokens by the query parser, not the tokenizer.

Don’t use stop words. Just remove that line. Removing stop words is a 
performance and space hack that was useful in the 1960’s, but causes problems 
now. I’ve never used stop word removal and I started in search with Infoseek in 
1996. Stop word removal is like a binary idf, ignoring common words. Since we 
have idf, we can give a lower score to common words and keep them in the index. 

Do those two things and it should work as you expect. 

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Andrea Gazzarini <a.gazzar...@sease.io> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan, thanks for the response and thank you very much for the pointers
> 
> On 26/07/18 12:16, Alan Woodward wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>> 
>> This is a long-standing issue: see 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4065 
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4065> and 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8250 
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8250> for discussion.  I don’t 
>> think we’ve reached a consensus on how to fix it yet, but more examples are 
>> good.
>> 
>> Unfortunately I don’t think changing the StopFilter to ignore SYNONYM tokens 
>> will work, because then you’ll generate queries that always fail - they’ll 
>> search for ‘of’ in the middle of the phrase, but ‘of’ never gets indexed 
>> because it’s removed by the StopFilter at index time.
>> 
>> - Alan
>> 
>>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 08:04, Andrea Gazzarini <a.gazzar...@sease.io 
>>> <mailto:a.gazzar...@sease.io>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, 
>>> I have the following field type definition: 
>>> <fieldtype name="text" class="solr.TextField" 
>>> autoGeneratePhraseQueries="true">
>>>     <analyzer type="index">
>>>         <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
>>>         <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
>>>     </analyzer>
>>>     <analyzer type="query">
>>>         <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
>>>         <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
>>>         <filter class="solr.SynonymGraphFilterFactory" 
>>> synonyms="synonyms.txt" ignoreCase="false" expand="true"/>
>>>         <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" words="stopwords.txt" 
>>> ignoreCase="false"/>
>>>     </analyzer>
>>> </fieldtype>
>>> Where synonyms and stopwords are defined as follows: 
>>> 
>>> synonyms = out of warranty,oow
>>> stopwords = of
>>> 
>>> Running the following query:
>>> 
>>> q=my tv went out of warranty something of
>>> 
>>> I get wrong results, with the following explain: 
>>> 
>>> title:my title:tv title:went (title:oow PhraseQuery(title:"out ? warranty 
>>> something"))
>>> 
>>> That is, the synonyms is correctly detected, I see the graph information 
>>> are correctly reported in the positionLength, it seems they are wrongly 
>>> interpreted by the QueryParser. 
>>> I guess the reason is the "of" removal operated by the StopFilter, which 
>>> removes the "of" term within the phrase (I wouldn't want that)
>>> creates a "hole" in the span defined by the "oow" term, which has been 
>>> marked as a synonym with a positionLength = 3, therefore including the next 
>>> available term (something). 
>>> I tried to change the StopFilter in order to ignore stopwords that are 
>>> marked as SYNONYM or that are part of a previous synonym span, and it 
>>> works: it correctly produces the following query: 
>>> 
>>> title:my title:tv title:went (title:oow PhraseQuery(title:"out of 
>>> warranty")) title:something
>>> 
>>> So I'd like to ask your opinion about this. Am I missing something? Do you 
>>> think it's better to open a JIRA issue? If the solution is a graph aware 
>>> stop filter, do you think it's better to change the existing filter or to 
>>> subclass it?
>>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> Andrea
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to