Take a look at admin/analysis to see what happens when. What do you mean by "apply a PorterStemFilter"? At index time? Query time?
The analysis page will let you look at what the terms look after they've gone through your analysis chain, and the answer may be obvious then.... All that said, you can also choose to use one of the less aggressive stemmers which may help. On the surface of it, though, your examples make no sense. Stemming has nothing at all to do with wildcards and certainly shouldn't alter the *beginnings* of the words. So I suspect you're really getting matches somewhere other than the field you think you are getting matches on. Posting your schema and the results of appending &debugQuery=on would certainly help. Best Erick On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, SBS <jturn...@uow.edu.au> wrote: > It seems that when I use a PorterStemFilter in my custom analyser, wildcard > searches malfunction. > > As an example, I have the words "appendicitis" and "sensitisation" in our > content. When I enter a query of "a*itis" I would expect to have > "appendicitis" match but instead I get "sensitisation" and not > "appendicitis". If I remove the PorterStemFilter then things behave as I > would have expected and desired. > > Why is this happening? Is there a way to apply a PorterStemFilter and still > be able to use wildcards? > > I am using Lucene 3.2. > > Thanks, > > -sbs > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/PorterStemFilter-causes-wildcard-searches-to-not-work-tp3525790p3525790.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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
