Hi Aman, see my responses inline below. > On Nov 28, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Aman Deep Singh <amandeep.coo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks steve, > I got it but my problem is u can't make the every field with same analysis,
I don’t understand: why can’t you use copy fields with all the same analysis? > Is there any chance that sow and mm will work properly ,I don't see this in > future pipe line also,as their is no jira related to this. I wrote up a description of an idea I had about addressing it in a reply to Doug Turnbull's thread on this subject, linked from my blog: from <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201703.mbox/%3cf9297676-de1a-4c2d-928d-76fdbe75f...@gmail.com%3e>: > In implementing the SOLR-9185 changtes, I considered a compromise approach to > the term-centric > / field-centric axis you describe in the case of differing field analysis > pipelines: finding > common source-text-offset bounded slices in all per-field queries, and then > producing dismax > queries over these slices; this is a generalization of what happens in the > sow=true case, > where slice points are pre-determined by whitespace. However, it looked > really complicated > to maintain source text offsets with queries (if you’re interested, you can > see an example > of the kind of thing I’m talking about in my initial patch on > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7533>, which I ultimately > decided against committing), so I decided to go with per-field dismax when > structural differences are encountered in the per-field queries. While I > won’t be doing > any work on this short term, I still think the above-described approach could > improve the > situation in the sow=false/differing-field-analysis case. Patches welcome! -- Steve www.lucidworks.com
