[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12602885#action_12602885
]
Koji Sekiguchi commented on SOLR-517:
-------------------------------------
Mike,
I think we discussed this on solr-user, not java-dev.
http://www.nabble.com/hl.requireFieldMatch-and-idf-td16324482.html#a16324482
As I pointed out in the thread, I think Lucene can return negative idf and this
is Lucene's feature.
Do you agree on this point?
> (I don't think that the right thing to do is remove idf fetching of the terms
> as your patch proposes)
How about introducing a new hl parameter to choose QueryScorer constructor so
that users to avoid negative idf with un-optimized index, instead of just
removing idf fetching?
{code}
if (reqFieldMatch) {
if (considerIdf) // this is default
return new QueryScorer(query, request.getSearcher().getReader(), fieldName);
else
return new QueryScorer(query, fieldName);
}
{code}
> highlighter doesn't work with hl.requireFieldMatch=true on un-optimized index
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-517
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-517
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: highlighter
> Affects Versions: 1.2, 1.3
> Reporter: Koji Sekiguchi
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: SOLR-517.patch, SOLR-517.patch, SOLR-517.patch
>
>
> On un-optimized index, highlighter doesn't work with
> hl.requireFieldMatch=true.
> see:
> http://www.nabble.com/hl.requireFieldMatch-and-idf-td16324482.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
