Thanks, Even if you add to the example a document called "giga", I'm not sure that searching "giga~0.8" would return anything.
It seems a bit weird because an exact search (which I guess should be more or less equivalent to a fuzzy search with nearly ~1 similarity) would actually return some results. I guess it was part of an attempt to prevent unsignificant terms from having unreasonable impact to the score, but can we still call that factor "minimum similarity" then? I really suspect there's something broken here, or perhaps I just fail to understand the logic. The way it worked in 2.4.1 seemed much more interesting, now even a 100% exact match isn't enough for the query to succeed, in my opinion this should have been implemented as a completely different query type. I have no intention in making any offense here, I'm just trying to understand... Kind regards Michael McCandless-2 wrote: > > This looks to have been caused by: > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1124 > > Which short circuits all matching if the term is too short relative to > the min similarity. But I guess something must be wrong w/ the > formula. > > I'll reopen that issue & mark fix for 2.9.1. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Difference-between-2.4.1-and-2.9.0-%28possible-regression-%29-tp25924689p25929358.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
