On 11/8/06 10:30 AM, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Also, the phonetic matches are ranked a bit high, so I'm trying a
> : sub-1.0 boost. I was expecting the lower idf to fix that automatically.
> : The metaphone will almost always have a lower idf because multiple
> : words are
: A naming convention question: should the class names end in
: Filter or TokenFilter (and FilterFactory or TokenFilterFactory)?
: I see both in org.apache.solr.analysis.
Ummm "yes" :)
I don't think it makes a big difference ... i'd never noticed the
inconsistency untill now.
: I'm a bit
On 11/7/06 5:44 PM, "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grab the code from Lucene in Action, it's got something to get you going, see:
>
> http://www.lucenebook.com/search?query=metaphone
Thanks. I thought about looking that up (I have the book), but the
code is really trivial insi
Subject: Re: Adding Phonetic Search to Solr
: >> 1. Adding fuzzy to the DisMax specs.
: >
: > What do you envisage the implementation looking like?
:
: Probably continue with the template-like patterns already there.
:
: title^2.0 (search title field with boost of 2.0)
: title~ (
On 11/7/06 3:26 PM, "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the state of the art in phonetic token generation reasonable? I've
> been rather disappointed with some implementations (eg. SOUNDEX in
> MySQL, MSSQL).
SOUNDEX is excellent technology for its time, but its time was 1920.
Double M
On 11/7/06, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/7/06 2:30 PM, "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Adding fuzzy to the DisMax specs.
>
> What do you envisage the implementation looking like?
Probably continue wit
: >> 1. Adding fuzzy to the DisMax specs.
: >
: > What do you envisage the implementation looking like?
:
: Probably continue with the template-like patterns already there.
:
: title^2.0 (search title field with boost of 2.0)
: title~ (search title field with fuzzy matching)
Interestin
On 11/7/06 2:30 PM, "Mike Klaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Adding fuzzy to the DisMax specs.
>
> What do you envisage the implementation looking like?
Probably continue with the template-like patterns already there.
title^2.0
On 11/7/06, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Adding a phonetic token filter and relying on the per-field analyzer
> support.
>
> Option 2 seems like it would be a lot faster in production, and
> probably easier to implement. Does that seem right?
I'm not sure why any modification to so
: 2. Adding a phonetic token filter and relying on the per-field analyzer
: support.
:
: Option 2 seems like it would be a lot faster in production, and
: probably easier to implement. Does that seem right?
yep, just write your Analyzer (or TokenFilter) and drop it in.
: How do I specify the new
On 11/7/06, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't found fuzzy or phonetic search in Solr, and I have a couple
of approaches I might try:
1. Adding fuzzy to the DisMax specs.
What do you envisage the implementation looking like?
2. Adding a phonetic token filter and relying on
11 matches
Mail list logo
