<<<What's confusing me is that another of my fields does not have any analyzers defined at all, and it's working fine without problems.>>>
Field or fieldType? << So, it must be possible to define field type without specifying any analyzers. >> Truth to tell, I don't know off the top of my head what happens if you define no analyzer for a fieldType. I think it would be bad practice anyway, *I* want to *know* what indexing and analyzing operations are going on so I can predict the resutls <G>. Someone want to chime in? As for the second part, I'll have to defer (my boss actually wants me to do work). But you'd get a better response if you posted it as a separate thread. See: http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack When starting a new discussion on a mailing list, please do not reply to an existing message, instead start a fresh email. Even if you change the subject line of your email, other mail headers still track which thread you replied to and your question is "hidden" in that thread and gets less attention. It makes following discussions in the mailing list archives particularly difficult. See Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonDiego/Thread_hijacking Best, Erick <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonDiego/Thread_hijacking>On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Kuhlmann <michael.kuhlm...@zalando.de> wrote: Hi Erick, > > thank you very much for your help. What's confusing me is that another > of my fields does not have any analyzers defined at all, and it's > working fine without problems. So, it must be possible to define field > type without specifying any analyzers. I don't understand why it > shouldn't be possible any more if either the index or the query analyzer > is specified and the other not. Maybe it would be clearer if Solr would > raise an exception in this case instead of using some analyzer that was > specified for the opposite type. > > Anyway; I took your advice and used the KeywordTokenizerFactory instead. > Great! Now it does excactly what I want. Thanks again! > > But may I ask another question? As with the categories, I have some > fields that are only used for faceting, so they're only queried by facet > results. No modification is needed, no lowercase, nothing. So the > KeywordTokenizerFactory is perfect for them. > > Alas, when the value contains spaces, I'm still getting too many > results. I have a field defined like this: > > <fieldType name="text_unchanged" class="solr.StrField" > positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > (Using solr.TextField didn't change anything) > > When quering for: > ....&fq=label:Aces+of+London > > I get the result: > .... "facet_fields":{ > "label":[ > "Aces of London",31, > "Feud London",2, > "Fly London",2], > ....}, > > I get the same result when taking "Feud London" as the facet value. > > When inspecting the index with the schema browser, I can see that all > labels are tokenized correctly in complete, i.e. there's no token > "London", but a token "Aces of London". So the KeywordTokenizer seems to > work as expected, at least for indexing. It's only that the facet query > is not narrow enough. > > Even the superb Solr book didn't help me here. Do you - or any other - > has/have a clue what I'm doing wrong here? > > Greetings, > Michael > > On 03/12/10 14:52, Erick Erickson wrote: > > Well, what would you have SOLR do that makes sense if you > > don't define a query analyzer? Very very strange things > > happen if you use different analyzers for indexing > > and querying. At least defaulting that way has a *chance* of > > giving expected results... > > > > Why not use, say, KeywordTokenizerFactory if you really > > want the query analyzer to do nothing? Perhaps lowercasing > > etc. See: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters > > > > <http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters>HTH > > Erick > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Michael Kuhlmann < > > michael.kuhlm...@zalando.de> wrote: > > >
