[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12597080#action_12597080
 ] 

Grant Ingersoll commented on LUCENE-1224:
-----------------------------------------

FWIW, I also think we should address the more philosophical question of what 
the intermediate positions should be of the tokens.  The more I think about it, 
the more I think all "grams" of a given word should be at the same position, 
but I would like to hear from others on this before deciding.

> NGramTokenFilter creates bad TokenStream
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1224
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1224
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: contrib/*
>            Reporter: Hiroaki Kawai
>            Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1224.patch, NGramTokenFilter.patch, 
> NGramTokenFilter.patch
>
>
> With current trunk NGramTokenFilter(min=2,max=4) , I index "abcdef" string 
> into an index, but I can't query it with "abc". If I query with "ab", I can 
> get a hit result.
> The reason is that the NGramTokenFilter generates badly ordered TokenStream. 
> Query is based on the Token order in the TokenStream, that how stemming or 
> phrase should be anlayzed is based on the order (Token.positionIncrement).
> With current filter, query string "abc" is tokenized to : ab bc abc 
> meaning "query a string that has ab bc abc in this order".
> Expected filter will generate : ab abc(positionIncrement=0) bc
> meaning "query a string that has (ab|abc) bc in this order"
> I'd like to submit a patch for this issue. :-)

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to