: 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 11/8/06 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 mapped
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
: 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
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 (search
: 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)
Interesting
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 with the
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
: 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~ (search title field with fuzzy
