for searching sub-strings, ngrams are generally preferred. To expand on Jack's point.
The whole purpose behind reversed wildcards is that without them, searching for *abcd requires that _every_ term in your field be enumerated, which can be very expensive. Adding in reversed wildcards causes this to turn into a trailing wildcard, and enumerating bcda* is much easier/less costly. Best Erick On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, maurizio1976 <maurizio.picc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I've been searching for an answer to this everywhere but I can never find an > answer that is perfect for my case, so I'll ask this myself. > > I'm on Solr 3.6. > I'm using I use the *ReversedWildcardFilterFactory* in a field containing a > telephone number. > So only one word to be indexed, no phrases no strange tokens. > To be more exact: <filter class="solr.ReversedWildcardFilterFactory" > withOriginal="true" > maxPosAsterisk="3" maxPosQuestion="2" > maxFractionAsterisk="0.33"/> > > I can check with Luke that two words are being indexed, one the reverse of > the other. Perfect. > > I can run a query like this:*/ Num:*1234/* that will match docs starting > with 1234 > and I can run a query like this:* /Num:1234*/* that will match docs ending > with 1234 > > but this is the question that everybody seems to be asking. > Can I run in any way a query that will match records that "contains" the > value 1234? > > If I write this: Num:*1234* this will match docs containing 1234 but also > docs containing 4321 which is wrong. this means this query: /Num*4321*/ and > this query: /Num:*1234*/ return exactly the same result. > > Is this the wrong approach? has anybody tried the N-gram solution to this > problem? > > thanks very much > Maurizio > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Wildcard-searches-with-leading-and-ending-wildcard-tp3992086.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
