For the records, what I finally did is place those words I want spellcheck to ignore in spellcheck.collateParam.fq and the words I'd like to be checked in spellcheck.q. collationQuery uses spellcheck.collateParam.fq so all did_you_mean queries return results containing words in spellcheck.collateParam.fq.
Best regards, Elisabeth 2015-04-14 17:05 GMT+02:00 elisabeth benoit <elisaelisael...@gmail.com>: > Thanks for your answer! > > I didn't realize this what not supposed to be done (conjunction of > DirectSolrSpellChecker and FileBasedSpellChecker). I got this idea in the > mailing list while searching for a solution to get a list of words to > ignore for the DirectSolrSpellChecker. > > Well well well, I'll try removing the check and see what happens. I'm not > a java programmer, but if I can find a simple solution I'll let you know. > > Thanks again, > Elisabeth > > 2015-04-14 16:29 GMT+02:00 Dyer, James <james.d...@ingramcontent.com>: > >> Elisabeth, >> >> Currently ConjunctionSolrSpellChecker only supports adding >> WordBreakSolrSpellchecker to IndexBased- FileBased- or >> DirectSolrSpellChecker. In the future, it would be great if it could >> handle other Spell Checker combinations. For instance, if you had a >> (e)dismax query that searches multiple fields, to have a separate >> spellchecker for each of them. >> >> But CSSC is not hardened for this more general usage, as hinted in the >> API doc. The check done to ensure all spellcheckers use the same >> stringdistance object, I believe, is a safeguard against using this class >> for functionality it is not able to correctly support. It looks to me that >> SOLR-6271 was opened to fix the bug in that it is comparing references on >> the stringdistance. This is not a problem with WBSSC because this one does >> not support string distance at all. >> >> What you're hoping for, however, is that the requirement for the string >> distances be the same to be removed entirely. You could try modifying the >> code by removing the check. However beware that you might not get the >> results you desire! But should this happen, please, go ahead and fix it >> for your use case and then donate the code. This is something I've >> personally wanted for a long time. >> >> James Dyer >> Ingram Content Group >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: elisabeth benoit [mailto:elisaelisael...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:37 AM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: using DirectSpellChecker and FileBasedSpellChecker with Solr >> 4.10.1 >> >> Hello, >> >> I am using Solr 4.10.1 and trying to use DirectSolrSpellChecker and >> FileBasedSpellchecker in same request. >> >> I've applied change from patch 135.patch (cf Solr-6271). I've tried >> running >> the command "patch -p1 -i 135.patch --dry-run" but it didn't work, maybe >> because the patch was a fix to Solr 4.9, so I just replaced line in >> ConjunctionSolrSpellChecker >> >> else if (!stringDistance.equals(checker.getStringDistance())) { >> throw new IllegalArgumentException( >> "All checkers need to use the same StringDistance."); >> } >> >> >> by >> >> else if (!stringDistance.equals(checker.getStringDistance())) { >> throw new IllegalArgumentException( >> "All checkers need to use the same StringDistance!!! 1:" + >> checker.getStringDistance() + " 2: " + stringDistance); >> } >> >> as it was done in the patch >> >> but still, when I send a spellcheck request, I get the error >> >> msg": "All checkers need to use the same StringDistance!!! >> 1:org.apache.lucene.search.spell.LuceneLevenshteinDistance@15f57db32: >> org.apache.lucene.search.spell.LuceneLevenshteinDistance@280f7e08" >> >> From error message I gather both spellchecker use same distanceMeasure >> LuceneLevenshteinDistance, but they're not same instance of >> LuceneLevenshteinDistance. >> >> Is the condition all right? What should be done to fix this properly? >> >> Thanks, >> Elisabeth >> > >
