Re: QueryParser/StopAnalyzer question

2011-05-28 Thread Erick Erickson
Sorry, I was at Lucene Revolution, and out of circulation for a while. I agree with your point that it depends (what correct behavior is). Seems like a lot of Solr/Lucene has that answer... But as to stop words, the trend lately is to NOT remove them anyway. The whole stop word issue comes from

Re: QueryParser/StopAnalyzer question

2011-05-23 Thread Mindaugas Žakšauskas
Not much luck so far :( Just in case if anyone wants to earn some virtual dosh, I have added some 50 bonus points to this question on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6044061/lucene-query-parsing-behaviour-joining-query-parts-with-and I also promise to post a solution here if

Re: QueryParser/StopAnalyzer question

2011-05-23 Thread Erick Erickson
Hmmm, somehow I missed this days ago Anyway, the Lucene query parsing process isn't quite Boolean logic. I encourage you to think in terms of required, optional, and prohibited. Both queries are equivalent, to see this try attaching debugQuery=on to your URL and look at the parsed query in

Re: QueryParser/StopAnalyzer question

2011-05-23 Thread Mindaugas Žakšauskas
Hi Erick, I think answer to this question depends which hat you put on. If you put search engine hat (or do similar things in, i.e. Google), the results will be the same as what Lucene does at the moment. And that's fair enough - getting more results in search engine world is almost always

QueryParser/StopAnalyzer question

2011-05-17 Thread Mindaugas Žakšauskas
Hi, Let's say we have an index having few documents indexed using StopAnalyzer.ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS_SET. The user issues two queries: 1) foo:bar 2) baz:there is Let's assume that the first query yields some results because there are documents matching that query. The second query contains two