Thanks Erick, This is a required feature since we're swapping out an existing search engine for Solr - users have saved searches that need to behave the same.
I'll look into the edismax stuff, that's the handler we're using anyway. --- IntelCompute Web Design & Local Online Marketing http://www.intelcompute.com On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:12:11 -0500, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, watch the syntax <G>.... > > q=+(stemmed:perl^2 or stemmed:java^3) +unstemmed:"development manager"^5 > although it is a bit confusing to see the dismax stuff where the boost > is put on the > field name, but that's not how the queries are formed. > > BTW, have you looked at edismax queries? You can distribute your terms > across the fields, applying whatever boost you want and have the query > input be pretty simple. It takes a bit to get your head around what > edismax does, > but it's worth it.... > > But before you go there.... You've presented no evidence that this is > desirable. > What is the use-case here? You say "users may want"... Well, why do the work > unless they *do* want this capability? I'd strongly advise that you > just forget about > this feature unless and until there's a demonstrated need. Here's a > blog I made at > Lucid. Long-winded, but I'm like that sometimes.... > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/11/03/stop-being-so-agreeable/ > > Best > Erick > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Robert Brown <r...@intelcompute.com> wrote: >> Boosts can be included there too can't they? >> >> so this is valid? >> >> q=+(stemmed^2:perl or stemmed^3:java) +unstemmed^5:"development >> manager" >> >> is it possible to have different boosts on the same field btw? >> >> We currently search across 5 fields anyway, so my queries are gonna >> start getting messy. :-/ >> >> >> --- >> >> IntelCompute >> Web Design & Local Online Marketing >> >> http://www.intelcompute.com >> >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:08:41 -0500, Erick Erickson >> <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> You can't have multiple "q" clauses (as opposed to "fq" clauses). >>> You could form something like >>> q=unstemmed:perl or java&fq=stemmed:manager >>> or >>> q=+(unstemmed:perl or java) +stemmed:manager >>> >>> BTW, this fragment of the query probably doesn't do >>> what you expect: >>> unstemmed:perl or java >>> would be parsed as >>> unstemmed:perl OR default_search_field:java >>> >>> FWIW >>> Erick >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Rob Brown <r...@intelcompute.com> wrote: >>>> I guess I could do a bit of pre-processing, look for any words that are >>>> quoted, and search in a diff field for those >>>> >>>> How is a query like this formulated? >>>> >>>> q=unstemmed:perl or java&q=stemmed:manager >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> IntelCompute >>>> Web Design and Online Marketing >>>> >>>> http://www.intelcompute.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tomas Zerolo <tomas.zer...@axelspringer.de> >>>> Reply-to: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Don't snowball depending on terms >>>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:49:37 +0100 >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:53:44PM -0500, François Schiettecatte wrote: >>>>> It won't and depending on how your analyzer is set up the terms are most >>>>> likely stemmed at index time. >>>>> >>>>> You could create a separate field for unstemmed terms though, or use a >>>>> less aggressive stemmer such as EnglishMinimalStemFilterFactory. >>>> >>>> This is surprising to me. Snowball introduces new homonyms, meaning it >>>> will lump e.g. "management" and "manage" into one index entry. Thus, >>>> I'd expect a handful of "false positives" (but usually not too many). >>>> >>>> That's a "lossy index" (loosely speaking) and could be fixed by >>>> post-filtering (instead of introducing another index, which in >>>> most cases would seem a waste of resurces). >>>> >>>> Is there no way in SOLR of filtering the results *after* the index >>>> scan? I'd be disappointed! >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> -- tomás >>>> >>
