[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12597657#action_12597657
]
Mike Klaas commented on SOLR-553:
---------------------------------
[quote]Added explicit check for usePhraseHighlighter=true to avoid things like
usePhraseHighlighter=false to turn it on.[/quote]
I'm not sure I follow you here. Just to verify:
- the default is to use SpanScorer when the query is a "pure" phrase query
- you can force SS with usePhraseHighlighting
- queries that are mixed queries with keywords and phrases are still
problematic.
If this is correct, is there any point in the usePhraseHighlighter parameter?
I don't see where it would entail different behaviour. Also, what are the
consequences for dismax queries (pure or mixed)?
> Highlighter does not match phrase queries correctly
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-553
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-553
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: highlighter
> Affects Versions: 1.2
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Brian Whitman
> Assignee: Otis Gospodnetic
> Attachments: highlighttest.xml, Solr-553.patch, Solr-553.patch,
> Solr-553.patch
>
>
> http://www.nabble.com/highlighting-pt2%3A-returning-tokens-out-of-order-from-PhraseQuery-to16156718.html
> Say we search for the band "I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness"
> .../selectrows=100&q=%22I%20Love%20You%20But%20I\'ve%20Chosen%20Darkness%22&fq=type:html&hl=true&hl.fl=content&hl.fragsize=500&hl.snippets=5&hl.simple.pre=%3Cspan%3E&hl.simple.post=%3C/span%3E
> The highlight returns a snippet that does have the name altogether:
> Lights (Live) : <span>I</span> <span>Love</span> <span>You</span> But
> <span>I've</span> <span>Chosen</span> <span>Darkness</span> :
> But also returns unrelated snips from the same page:
> Black Francis Shop "<span>I</span> Think <span>I</span> <span>Love</span>
> <span>You</span>"
> A correct highlighter should not return snippets that do not match the phrase
> exactly.
> LUCENE-794 (not yet committed, but seems to be ready) fixes up the problem
> from the Lucene end. Solr should get it too.
> Related: SOLR-575
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
