It was a bug and Mike fixed it. The bug was that exact matches where not being returned as you state. Will be fixed in 2.9.1.
stefcl wrote: > 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. >> >> >> > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
