On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:31 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On 10/29/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters? > > > > > > Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked out a fix for yet. > > > The issue is that you can't just run the prefix through the filters > > > because of things like stop words, stemming, minimum length filters, > > > etc. > > > > What about not having only "facet.prefix" but additionally > > "facet.filtered.prefix" that runs the prefix through the filters? > > Would that be possible? > > The underlying issue remains - it's not safe to treat the prefix like > any other word when running it through the filters. Yes, definitely the user that uses this feature should know what it does - but at least there would be the possibility to run the prefix through e.g. a LowerCaseFilter. Finally the user knows what filters he has configured. E.g. if you only want an ignore-case prefix test, s.th. like a facet.filtered.prefix would be really valuable.
Cheers, Martin > > -Yonik >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
