Thanks for pointing me to the right class to use.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:23 AM, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes that's right, my mistake.
>
> In fact even after reading your comment I was puzzled
> because PhraseScorer indeed requires *all* phrase-positions
> to be satisfied in order to m
Yes that's right, my mistake.
In fact even after reading your comment I was puzzled
because PhraseScorer indeed requires *all* phrase-positions
to be satisfied in order to match. The answer is that
the OR logic is taken care of by MultipleTermPositions,
so the scorer does not need to be aware of a
Isn't MultiPhraseQuery what is desired here? you can add Term[]s per
position and at least one term in each array must much.
: > I was thinking of parsing the phrase query string into a
: > sequence of terms,
: > then constructing a phrase query object using add(Term term,
: > int position)
: >
You might want to take a look at the TokenPhraseSuggester in
LUCENE-626. It is more or less a FuzzySpanQuery, built from a matrix
of tokens, but places one search for each possible query out of the
matrix (with some optional parameters to minimze the query) to find a
score and the hits for
smokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/12/2007 16:54:32:
> Thanks for the information on o.a.l.search.spans.
>
> I was thinking of parsing the phrase query string into a
> sequence of terms,
> then constructing a phrase query object using add(Term term,
> int position)
> method in org.apache.lucen
y to "The
> > login (fraud
> > OR fruad) involves an (impostor OR imposter)", which should be logically
> > equivalent to the first (longer) query.
> >
> > So my question is
> > (1) if others have generated the "The login (fraud OR fruad) involves
The
> login (fraud
> OR fruad) involves an (impostor OR imposter)", which should be logically
> equivalent to the first (longer) query.
>
> So my question is
> (1) if others have generated the "The login (fraud OR fruad) involves an
> (impostor OR imposter)"
on the
> > index.
> > A more efficient approach would be to expand the query to "The login
> > (fraud
> > OR fruad) involves an (impostor OR imposter)", which should be logically
> > equivalent to the first (longer) query.
> >
> > So my question i
ger) query.
>
> So my question is
> (1) if others have generated the "The login (fraud OR fruad) involves an
> (impostor OR imposter)" types of queries when applying SpellChecker to a
> phrase, and agreed that this indeed performs better than the first one.
> (2) if others have observed any problems in doing so in terms of
> performance
> or anything else
>
> Any information would be appreciated.
>
(1) if others have generated the "The login (fraud OR fruad) involves an
(impostor OR imposter)" types of queries when applying SpellChecker to a
phrase, and agreed that this indeed performs better than the first one.
(2) if others have observed any problems in doing so in terms of performance
or anything else
Any information would be appreciated.
10 matches
Mail list logo
