Short form:
While testing Solr 5.0.0 within our staging environment, I noticed that
highlight enabled queries are much slower than I saw with 4.10. Are there any
obvious reasons why this might be the case? As far as I can tell, nothing has
changed with the default highlight search component or
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4014820/solr-highlighting-of-multiple-terms
tells us how to have multiple snippets be returned containing highlighted
searched terms..
my question is: What is the separator of the string that is returned? I'm
seeing it as a carriage return which isn't very
?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Highlighting is such a pain...
what does the parsed query look like? If the default operator is OR,
then this seems correct as both 'd' and 'c' appear in the doc. So
I'm a bit puzzled by your statement
://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.solr/solr-core/4.3.1/org/apache/solr/highlight/DefaultSolrHighlighter.java#470
Is it correct assumption?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Highlighting is such a pain...
what does the parsed query look like
Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Highlighting is such a pain...
what does the parsed query look like? If the default operator is OR,
then this seems correct as both 'd' and 'c' appear in the doc. So
I'm a bit puzzled by your statement that c didn't contribute to the
score
Hmmm, not quite sure what to say. Offsets and positions help,
particularly with FastVectorHighlighter, but the highlighting is
usually re-analyzed anyway so it _shouldn't_ matter. But what I don't
know about highlighting could fill volumes ;)..
Sorry I can't be more help here.
Erick
On Tue, Feb
, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Highlighting is such a pain...
what does the parsed query look like? If the default operator is OR,
then this seems correct as both 'd' and 'c' appear in the doc. So
I'm a bit puzzled by your statement that c didn't
Hello!
In solr 4.3.1 there seem to be some inconsistency with the highlighting of
the boolean query:
a OR (b c) OR d
This returns a proper hit, which shows that only d was included into the
document score calculation.
But the highlighter returns both d and c in em tags.
Is this a known issue
AM, Dmitry Kan solrexp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
In solr 4.3.1 there seem to be some inconsistency with the highlighting
of
the boolean query:
a OR (b c) OR d
This returns a proper hit, which shows that only d was included into the
document score calculation
Are you using edismax?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Dmitry Kan solrexp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
In solr 4.3.1 there seem to be some inconsistency with the highlighting of
the boolean query:
a OR (b c) OR d
This returns a proper hit, which shows that only d was included
Highlighting is such a pain...
what does the parsed query look like? If the default operator is OR,
then this seems correct as both 'd' and 'c' appear in the doc. So
I'm a bit puzzled by your statement that c didn't contribute to the score.
If the parsed query is, indeed
a +b +c d
then it does
Hi - you can use the MLT query parser in Solr 5.0 or patch 4.10.x
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6248
-Original message-
From:Tim Hearn timseman...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday 31st January 2015 0:31
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Hit Highlighting and More Like
Hi all,
I'm fairly new to Solr. It seems like it should be possible to enable the
hit highlighting feature and more like this feature at the same time, with
the key words from the MLT query being the terms highlighted. Is this
possible? I am trying right now to do this, but I am not having any
Hi,
could you resolve the problem?
I am facing the same. Highlighting is shown in XML results but not on the
velocity template.
-Nico
Hello,
I turned on highlighting and some records do not have highlight text (See image
below):
[cid:image001.png@01D02358.A0E23D60]
Does anyone know why this is happening and how I can fix it?
Here is the querystring I am using
wt=jsonjson.wrf=?indent=truehl=truehl.fl=title
is that the top
few returns are just the file names, there's no text. In that case, you're
probably matching some other field than text but highlighting on the text
field. Do you perhaps have your request handler configured to use edismax
and are searching across multiple fields?
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Dec 29
Hi,
Thanks for your response. Do you maybe have an idea how to handle integers
(even on low level - Lucene) in highlighter?
--
Paweł
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com wrote:
So the short answer to your original question is no. Highlighting
:
So the short answer to your original question is no. Highlighting is
designed to find matches *within* a tokenized (text) field only. That is
difficult because text gets processed and there are all sorts of
complications, but for integers it should be pretty easy to match the
values
12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com wrote:
So the short answer to your original question is no. Highlighting is
designed to find matches *within* a tokenized (text) field only. That
is
difficult because text gets processed and there are all sorts
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com wrote:
So the short answer to your original question is no. Highlighting
is
designed to find matches *within* a tokenized (text) field only.
That
is
difficult because text gets processed and there are all sorts of
complications
Hi,
Is it possible to highlight int (TrieLongField) or long (TrieLongField)
field in Solr?
--
Paweł
Hi Pawel,
Essentially, highlighting is a feature to show fragments of documents
that matche user queries.
With that, he/she can find occurrence of their query in long documents and
can understand their results well.
For tint or tlong fields (or other non-text field types), fragments
usually have
Hi,
Thanks for response. It is quite important to me for example to highlight
multivalued field with many int or long tokens.
--
Paweł
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tomoko Uchida tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Pawel,
Essentially, highlighting is a feature to show fragments
So the short answer to your original question is no. Highlighting is
designed to find matches *within* a tokenized (text) field only. That
is difficult because text gets processed and there are all sorts of
complications, but for integers it should be pretty easy to match the
values
Hi,
I'm facing a weird issue where the specified hl.simple.pre and
hl.simple.post values for highlighting is getting ignored. In my test
handler, I've the following entry:
!-- Highlighting defaults --
str name=hltrue/str
str name=hl.simple.pre![CDATA[span class=vivbold qt0]]/str
str name
in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlighting-simple-pre-and-simple-post-values-getting-ignored-tp4168657p4168662.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Found the issue, to use FastVectorHighlighter, the pre and post tag syntax
are different
str name=hl.tag.pre/str
str name=hl.tag.post/str
This worked out as expected.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlighting-simple-pre-and-simple-post-values-getting
=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
It works like a charm. Now, we've had highlighting from Solr before,
using these parameters:
hl=truehl.simple.pre=span+class%3Dhighlighthl.snippets=1hl.simple.post=/spanspellcheck=truehl.fl=description
Now, we've seen
Hello!
I'm testing the »Collapse and Expand« functionality of Solr 4.10.
Collapsing and expanding results is working pretty well but it seems that
there's no way to get highlighting snippets for the expanded results.
Highlighting is only available for the result name=»response».
Am I
You are correct. Highlighting is working from the DocList, which only
includes the collapsed set when using Collapse/Expand.
Joel Bernstein
Search Engineer at Heliosearch
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Michael Hagström mhagstr...@brox.de
wrote:
Hello!
I'm testing the »Collapse
I have this line highlighted
emJobs/em was emborn/em in San Francisco, California on February
24 1955.
for query Jobs born~15 but not for born Jobs~15. I want the same result
irrespective of the order of search keywords.
Regards,
John Eipe
“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure
Well, maybe you can work with the ComplexPhraseQueryParser, that's
been around for a while, see:
http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_10_1/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/complexPhrase/ComplexPhraseQueryParser.html
Or you can just live with the inherent slop in the ~ operator. You
haven't
field = t_text;
assertU(adoc(field, Jobs was born in San Francisco, California on
February \n +
24 1955., id, 1));
assertU(commit());
assertQ(span,
req(q, \born Jobs\~15,
hl, true, df, field),
//lst[@name='highlighting']/lst[@name='1'] );
}
~ David
Yes. It seems to work for Default Highlighting. I'm using Fast Vector
Highlighter.
Let me also explain why I went for Fast Vector Highlighter. I wanted the
highlighted content to be complete and not broken words and for that I
need to use breakIterator which works only for Fast vector
...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. It seems to work for Default Highlighting. I'm using Fast Vector
Highlighter.
Let me also explain why I went for Fast Vector Highlighter. I wanted the
highlighted content to be complete and not broken words and for that I
need to use breakIterator which works only for Fast
Hi
My solr searches with highlighting returns documents (with all fields) that
contain the search words and highlighting.
Is there a way to restrict so that I get only id field + highlighting.
result name=response numFound=1 start=0
doc
str name=id1253/str
/doc
/result
lst name=highlighting
Thanks David.
So I guess I will have to go with default highlighter (with a higher
fragsize) and then take care of boundryScanning myself.
On 27 October 2014 09:48, john eipe john77e...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
My solr searches with highlighting returns documents (with all fields) that
contain the search words and highlighting.
Is there a way to restrict so that I get only id field + highlighting.
result name=response numFound=1
Perfect. Thanks.
Regards,
John Eipe
“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without
humanity, Worship without sacrifice, Politics without principles”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Hi
I'm trying to match keywords based on 2 fields and excluding order
importance but with distance restriction.
title:(Jobs) AND content_raw:(Jobs born)~15
This throws error:
org.apache.solr.search.SyntaxError: Cannot parse '(Jobs born)~15':
Encountered FUZZY_SLOP ~15
What's the correct way
Well, the syntax is wrong. You probably want content_raw:jobs
born~15. The way slop works, it is the number of moves so this will
match jobs was a man born somewhere and all persons born include
jobs. The difference is that the version that has born first and
jobs second will take an extra move,
Hi all,
I changed some of my fields from text_general to text_en, hoping to take
advantage of stemming and some other improvements, but unfortunately the
change has broken highlighting. It seems that it only wants to highlight
non-stemmed words (i.e. words whose stemmed version is the same
the
change has broken highlighting. It seems that it only wants to highlight
non-stemmed words (i.e. words whose stemmed version is the same as the word
itself, like child).
I'm using the default fieldType definition:
fieldType name=text_en class=solr.TextField
positionIncrementGap=100 analyzer type
On Friday, October 10, 2014 10:19 PM, Nicholas Violi
nvi...@globalgiving.org wrote:
Hi all,
I changed some of my fields from text_general to text_en, hoping to take
advantage of stemming and some other improvements, but unfortunately the
change has broken highlighting. It seems that it only wants
:
In order to take our Solr usage to the next step, we really need to
improve its highlighting abilities. What I'm trying to do is to be able
to write a new component that can return the fields that matched the
search (including numeric fields) and the start/end positions for the
alphanumeric
In order to take our Solr usage to the next step, we really need to
improve its highlighting abilities. What I'm trying to do is to be able
to write a new component that can return the fields that matched the
search (including numeric fields) and the start/end positions for the
alphanumeric
to
improve its highlighting abilities. What I'm trying to do is to be able
to write a new component that can return the fields that matched the
search (including numeric fields) and the start/end positions for the
alphanumeric matches.
I see three different approaches take, either way will require
This works great and fast, but doesn't work with the highlighting component.
The snippets that are returned apply to the child documents, but I am
actually searching in the parent and thus want a snippet from that search.
The children don't have any field I am searching on so they return empty
Right, it works!
I was not aware of this functionality and being able to customize it by
hl.requireFieldMatch param.
Thanks
Hello,
I need to expose the search and highlighting capabilities over few tens of
fields. The edismax's qf param makes it possible but the time performances
for searching tens of words over tens of fields is problematic.
I made a copyField (indexed, not stored) for these fields, which gives way
Hello,
Do you use classic highlighter or fast vector highlighter?
Aurélien
On 30.07.2014 09:36, Manuel Le Normand wrote:
Hello,
I need to expose the search and highlighting capabilities over few tens
of
fields. The edismax's qf param makes it possible but the time
performances
Current I use the classic but I can change my posting format in order to
work with another highlighting component if that leads to any solution
Doesn't hl.fl work in this case? Or is highlighting the 10 fields the
slowdown?
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Manuel Le Normand
manuel.lenorm...@gmail.com wrote:
Current I use the classic but I can change my posting format in order to
work with another highlighting component
The slowdown occurs during search, not highlighting. Having a disjunctive
query with 50 terms running 20 different posting lists is a hard task.
Harder than searching these 50 terms on a single (larger) posting list as
in the copyField case.
With the edismax qf param, sure, hl.fl=* works
bq: Is there a way to search the global copyField but highlight the original
stored fields?
That's what I was suggesting. Specify the global field for your search, but
use
hl.fl for fields you want to copy.
And yes, storing the fields is required for highlighting. Consider stemming
(or
worse
May be you miss that your field dom_title should be
index=true termVectors=true termPositions=true termOffsets=true
If I use a combined query - range query and others (term query), all terms
in field matched is highlighted. Any way to highlight only the term(s) in
term query?
Here is example.
+date:{20031231 TO *] +(title:red)
It highlight all terms except stopword.
using fq would not be an option because
You can specify an alternate query to use for highlighting purposes, with
the hl.q parameter. It doesn't affect the query results, but lets you
control which terms get highlighted.
See:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HighlightingParameters#hl.q
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From
of science blah blah
blah/field/doc/add'
Then, using a browser:
http://localhost/solr/collection1/select?q=knowledge+of+sciencefq=id:100
What I get back in highlighting is:
strblah blah blah bknowledge/b bof/b bscience/b blah blah
blah/str
What I want to get back is:
strblah blah blah bknowledge
'
Then, using a browser:
http://localhost/solr/collection1/select?q=knowledge+of+sciencefq=id:100
What I get back in highlighting is:
strblah blah blah bknowledge/b bof/b bscience/b blah blah
blah/str
What I want to get back is:
strblah blah blah bknowledge of science/b blah blah blah/str
I have
in 4.8 and out of box it is not working.
Has anyone ran into this issue? Please advise,
All help is appreciated in advance.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-8-result-page-desplay-changes-and-highlighting-tp4142504.html
Sent from the Solr - User
highlight feature in 4.8 and out of box it is not working.
Has anyone ran into this issue? Please advise,
All help is appreciated in advance.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-8-result-page-desplay-changes-and-highlighting-tp4142504.html
Sent from
Were you ever able to resolve this issue? I am having same issue and highligh
is not working for me on solr 4.8?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlighting-not-working-tp4112659p4142513.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
then highlighting should work - or at least it did for me.
As a super fast check, change the text field to stored=true and test.
Remember that you'll have to restart Solr and re-index first! HTH!
-Teague
-Original Message-
From: vicky [mailto:vi...@raytheon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Hi,
I want to highlight the search results without using Highlighligting
Parameters provided by Solrnet. following is my configuration for
highlighting parameters.
Here is my Schema.xml
field name=guid type=text_en indexed=true stored=true/
field name=title type=text_en indexed=true stored=true
Apparently it is not supported, so I will try to push it into Jira.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlighting-on-Parent-document-tp4139784p4141579.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
and the highlighter works as
aspected.
Best Regards.
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Juni 2014 um 09:14 Uhr
Von: jay list jay.l...@web.de
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Fw: highlighting on hl.alternateField (copyField target) doesnt
highlight
Anybody knowing this issue?
Gesendet
Anybody knowing this issue?
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 09:11 Uhr
Von: jay list jay.l...@web.de
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: highlighting on hl.alternateField (copyField target) doesnt highlight
Hello,
im trying to implement a user friendly search for phone
child2
filter
/child
/parent
This works great and fast. The only issue I have is with the highlighting
component. As I am returning the childs the snippets also apply to the
childs, but I am actually searching in the parent. (search query example:
{!child of=type:parent}q )
So
Hi,
We are currently using Solr 4.3 and have highlighting activated on three
different fields using FVH.
Is it possible with Solr to prioritize highlighting for these fields ?
I mean, how to configure Solr, when it's possible highlight the keywords
from the first field, and highlight
Hi,
We are currently using Solr 4.3 and have highlighting activated on three
different fields using FVH.
Is it possible with Solr to prioritize highlighting for these fields ?
I mean, how to configure Solr, when it’s possible highlight the keywords
from the first field, and highlight
Hello,
im trying to implement a user friendly search for phone numbers. These numbers
consist out of two digit-tokens like 12345 67890.
Finally I want the highlighting for the phone number in the search result,
without any concerns about was this search result hit by field tel
Hello,
im trying to implement a user friendly search for phone numbers. These numbers
consist out of two digit-tokens like 12345 67890.
Finally I want the highlighting for the phone number in the search result,
without any concerns about was this search result hit by field tel
name=hl.encoderhtml/str
str name=hl.simple.prelt;bgt;/str
str name=hl.simple.postlt;/bgt;/str
I omitted a lot of basic query settings and facet field info from this
snippet to focus on the highlighting component. What am I missing?
-Teague
Dear reader,
I'll like to highlight very large ocr docs (termvectors=true etc.).
Therefore I've made a separate highlight store collection where i'll
want to higlight ids selected from an other query from a separate
collection (containing the same ids).
Now querying like this:
q=ocr:abc AND
config behavior is by design?
Thanks in advance.
From: Cario, Elaine
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:44 PM
To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: Can't use 2 highlighting components in the same solrconfig
Hoping someone can help me...
I'm trying to use both the PostingsHighlighter
.
From: Cario, Elaine
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:44 PM
To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: Can't use 2 highlighting components in the same solrconfig
Hoping someone can help me...
I'm trying to use both the PostingsHighlighter and the FastVectorHighlighter in
the same solrconfig (selection
I changed the hardcoded BlockJoinChildQParser setting to use the parent
scoring and that seems to work. So I think I got rid of the scoring issue
:).
I also voted for the issue!
Didn't find a solution for the highlighting issue at the moment, but I am
considering to omit highlighting for now
Mikhail Khludnev wrote
Hello,
Score support is addressed at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5882.
Highlighting is another story. be aware of
http://heliosearch.org/expand-block-join/ it might somehow useful for your
problem.
Thx for the reply! My score question is answered
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:34 PM, StrW_dev r.j.bamb...@structweb.nl wrote:
Mikhail Khludnev wrote
Hello,
Score support is addressed at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5882.
Highlighting is another story. be aware of
http://heliosearch.org/expand-block-join/ it might somehow
reference it in any request handler).
Is this even possible to do? (I'm using 4.7.1).
I think the culprit is some specific code in SolrCore.loadSearchComponents(),
which specifically overwrites the highlighting component with the contents of
the postingshighlight component - so the components map
required info
/doc
doc
I search within the parent document and filter on the child documents. I get
the correct documents this way, but I have issues with scoring and
highlighting.
I am currently searching on the parent document and returning the child
document, as they hold specific
Hello,
Score support is addressed at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5882.
Highlighting is another story. be aware of
http://heliosearch.org/expand-block-join/ it might somehow useful for your
problem.
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:32 AM, StrW_dev r.j.bamb...@structweb.nl wrote:
Hello
=solr.TextField
positionIncrementGap=100
field name=plain_text type=text_de indexed=true stored=true
default= /
solrconfig setting for highlighting:
str name=hltrue/str
str name=hl.flplain_text title description/str
str name=hl.simple.prelt;bgt;/str
str name
=text_de indexed=true stored=true default=
/
solrconfig setting for highlighting:
str name=hltrue/str
str name=hl.flplain_text title description/str
str name=hl.simple.prelt;bgt;/str
str name=hl.simple.postlt;/bgt;/str
str name=hl.snippets5/str
str
minGramSize=1
maxGramSize=30/
/analyzer
analyzer type=query
tokenizer class=solr.StandardTokenizerFactory/
filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
If we searched for c with highlighting enabled we would get back
results such as:
emc/emdat
emc
wrote:
Same problem here:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-x-EdgeNGramFilterFactory-and-highlighting-td4114748.html
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
Bump
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote
-4-x-EdgeNGramFilterFactory-and-highlighting-td4114748.html
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
Bump
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
In 3.5.0 we have the following.
fieldType name=autocomplete
:11 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
Is this a known bug?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
Same problem here:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-x-EdgeNGramFilterFactory-and-highlighting-td4114748.html
On Tue, Mar 25
Is this a known bug?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com wrote:
Same problem here:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-x-EdgeNGramFilterFactory-and-highlighting-td4114748.html
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
If we searched for c with highlighting enabled we would get back
results such as:
emc/emdat
emc/emrocdile
emce/mool beans
But in the latest Solr (4.7) we get the full words highlighted back.
Did something change from these versions with regards to highlighting?
Thanks
Same problem here:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-4-x-EdgeNGramFilterFactory-and-highlighting-td4114748.html
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com wrote:
Bump
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Software Dev static.void@gmail.com
wrote:
In 3.5.0
minGramSize=1
maxGramSize=30/
/analyzer
analyzer type=query
tokenizer class=solr.StandardTokenizerFactory/
filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
If we searched for c with highlighting enabled we would get back
results such as:
emc/emdat
emc
Hello everybody,
I'm using Solr 4.6.1. and I'd like to know if there's a way to determine
exactly the number of characters of a fragment used in highlights. If I use
hl.fragsize=70 the length of the fragments that I get is variable (often)
and I get results of 90 characters length.
Regards and
Hi Juan,
Are you counting number of characters of html rendered snippet?
I think pre and post strings (html markup which are not displayed) are causing
that difference.
Ahmet
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:53 PM, Juan Carlos Serrano
jcserran...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm
Juan,
Pay close attention to the boundary scanner you’re employing:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HighlightingParameters#hl.boundaryScanner
You can be explicit to indicate a type (hl.bs.type) with options such as
CHARACTER, WORD, SENTENCE, and LINE. The default is WORD (as the wiki
indicates)
=namehighlighting_suggester/str
str
name=lookupImplorg.apache.solr.spelling.suggest.fst.AnalyzingInfixLookupFactory/str
!-- suggester with highlighting support --
str name=dictionaryImplDocumentDictionaryFactory/str !--
allows suggester to be built from the search index itself --
str name
Hi;
I want to detect sentences for Turkish documents to generate better
Higlighting at Solr 4.6.1 What do you prefer to me for that purpose?
Thanks;
Furkan KAMACI
for Highlighting
Hi;
I want to detect sentences for Turkish documents to generate better
Higlighting at Solr 4.6.1 What do you prefer to me for that purpose?
Thanks;
Furkan KAMACI
...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday 4th February 2014 12:03
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Sentence Detection for Highlighting
Hi;
I want to detect sentences for Turkish documents to generate better
Higlighting at Solr 4.6.1 What do you prefer to me for that purpose?
Thanks
301 - 400 of 1278 matches
Mail list logo
