t does *not* double your index size at all.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:06 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: stemming for English
>
> Yes, Ludovic. Thus effectively we get i
From what I have seen, adding a second field with the same terms as the first
does *not* double your index size at all.
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:06 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: stemming for English
option we had before we decided to go for a full-blown support
> of
> >
> > wildcards.
> >
> > Do you know of a way to keep both stemming and consistent wildcard
> support
> > in the same field?`
> >
> > Dmitry
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> Jouve
n option we had before we decided to go for a full-blown support of
>
> wildcards.
>
> Do you know of a way to keep both stemming and consistent wildcard support
> in the same field?`
>
> Dmitry
>
>
-
Jouve
France.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.
pproach to handle such situations, is going all the
> way
> > to modifying the Porter stemming source code the best choice?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dmitry Kan
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > If you reply to this email
t; to modifying the Porter stemming source code the best choice?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dmitry Kan
>
>
> --
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/stemm
Dear list,
In SOLR schema on the index side we use no stemming to support favor
wildcard search. On the query side of the index we use Porter stemming.
I have noticed the following issue: the term "pretty" gets stemmed to
"pretti" and thus not found.
What would be the approach to handle such sit
