>From my understanding, if you want regional sales manager to be indexed as
both director of sales and area manager, you
>would have to type:
>
>Regional sales manager -> director of sales, area manager
that works for searching, but because everything is in the same position,
searching for "dir
> what is the reasoning behind adding the bigrams and trigrams manually like
that? Maybe if we knew the end goal, we could figure out a different
strategy. Happy that at least the matching is working now!
I have large amount of synonyms and keep adding new ones, some of them
partially overlap. It
> Doing it the other way (new york city -> new_york_city, new_york) makes
more
sense,
Just checked it, that way does the matching as expected, but highlighting is
wrong
("new york: query matches "new york city" as it should, but also highlights
all of it)
--
Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.
> If you instead write "new york => new_york, new_york_city" it should work
I can't do that, as that would turn "new york" into "new york_city", which
is not what I want.
Doing it the other way (new york city -> new_york_city, new_york) makes more
sense, though I expect this to get positions wrong
Having synonyms defined for
new york -> new_york
new york city -> new_york_city
I'd like the phrase
new york city
to be indexed as both, but SynonymGraphFilter picks only one. Is there a way
around that?
--
Maciej Dziardziel
fied...@gmail.com
--
Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.co
fq stands for filter queries, not field queries. It must be a query that will
limit your result
and it is not responsible for scoring, so field^1.0 is invalid here.
The order of execution is that query q will be run against results of fq.
For example
q=samplestring1 & fq: samplestring2
will fir
I am trying to export some config options common to all cores into single
file,
which would be included using xinclude. The only problem is how to include
childrens of given node.
common_solrconfig.xml looks like that:
now all of the following attemps have failed:
http://www.w3.org/20
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
> I've never used it, but I think this is the use case that the Solr feature
> to use Lucene 'payloads' is meant for?
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/08/05/getting-started-with-payloads/
>
This is it, thanks for this link.
--
View this message in conte
Dennis Gearon wrote:
>
> Seems to me that you are doing externally to Solr what you could be doing
> internally. If you had ONE field as and weighted those in your SOLR
> query, that is how I am guessing it is usually done.
>
I guess i used confusing term for weight. The weight (value assigne
Dennis Gearon wrote:
>
> So does this mean that each document has a different weight for the same
> tag?
>
Exactly. The weight is a weight of a given tag for specific document, not
weight of the field as in weighted search. So one document may have tag1
with weight of 0.1, and another may have
I came up with another idea, which seem to do what i want. Any comments about
better solutions
or improving efficiency are welcome:
for each document create multivalue text field "tags" with all tags,
and multiple dynamic fields for each tag containging value, so we have:
{
id: 123
tags: tag1
Peter Karich wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Why do you need the weight for the tags?
>
The only reason to include weights is to sort results by weights.
So if there are multiple documents containing given tag,
i want them to be sorted by weight. Also i would like to be able
to seach by multiple tags at
I want to know if what i am trying to achieve is doable using solr.
I have some objects that have tags assigned. Tag is as string with weight
attached,
so whole document that i want to index can look like that:
{
id: 123,
tags: {
tag1: 0.01,
tag2: 0.3,
...
13 matches
Mail list logo
