Using two fields, as Grant suggested, works very well. For a while, we used three fields, exact, stemmed, and phonetic. The DisMax handler makes it very easy to manage that sort of configuration.
wunder On 12/7/08 12:51 PM, "Bertrand DUMAS-PILHOU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, I have the same reflexion actually. > If you add an another field for exact search, and the end cannot type a > search like : > "convertible" +house > Because in this sample, for 'convertible' the user want an exact search but > not for 'house'. > > And I don't want to develop an new parser for query. > > I think, the solution is to add something in the stemmer analyser to store > exact word too, and a parser that don't stem expression in quote. > > Is it a possible way ? > > > Grant Ingersoll-6 wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Ariel wrote: >> >>> Hi! I'm wondering what solr is really doing with the exact word vs. >>> the >>> stemmed word. >>> So for example I have 2 documents. >>> The first one has in the title the word "convertible" >>> The second one has "convert" >>> When solr stem the titles, both will be the same since convertible -> >>> convert. >>> >>> Then when I search "convertible" both documents seems to have the same >>> relevancy... is that right or Solr keeps track of the original word >>> and >>> gives extra score to the fact that I am actually looking for the >>> same exact >>> word that I have in a document... I might be wrong, but it seems to >>> me that >>> it should score that better. >> >> >> Solr doesn't keep track of the original word, unless you tell it to. >> So, if you are stemming, then you are losing the original word. A >> common way to solve what you are doing is to actually have two fields, >> where one is stemmed and one is exact (you can do this with the >> <copyField/> mechanism in the Schema). Thus, if you want exact >> match, you search the exact match field, otherwise you search the >> stemmed field. >> >> -Grant
