Thanks Erick! On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For future reference, fq clauses are parsed just like the q clause; > they can be arbitrarily complex. > Best, > Erick > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:52 AM, John Blythe <j...@curvolabs.com> wrote: >> after further investigation it looks like the synonym i was testing against >> was only associated with one of their multiple divisions (despite being the >> most common name for them!). it looks like this may clear the issue up, but >> thanks anyway! >> >> -- >> *John Blythe* >> Product Manager & Lead Developer >> >> 251.605.3071 | j...@curvolabs.com >> www.curvolabs.com >> >> 58 Adams Ave >> Evansville, IN 47713 >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:33 AM, John Blythe <j...@curvolabs.com> wrote: >> >>> morning everyone, >>> >>> i'm attempting to find related documents based on a manufacturer's >>> competitor. as such i'm querying against the 'description' field with >>> manufacturer1's product description but running a filter query with >>> manufacturer2's name against the 'mfgname' field. >>> >>> one of the ways that we help boost our document finding is with a synonym >>> dictionary for manufacturer names. many of the larger players have multiple >>> divisions, have absorbed smaller companies, etc. so we need all of their >>> potential names to map to our record. >>> >>> i may be wrong, but from my initial testing it doesn't seem to be applying >>> to a fq. is there any way of doing this? >>> >>> thanks- >>>
