Hi Roman, thanks for the link, will go through it. Erick, will try with expand=true once and check out the results. Will update this thread with the findings. I remember we rejected expand=true because of some weird spaghetti problem. Will check it out again.
Thanks, Parvesh Garg http://www.zettata.com On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Parvesh, > I think you should check the following jira > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5379. You will find there links > to other possible solutions/problems:-) > Roman > On 28 Oct 2013 09:06, "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Consider setting expand=true at index time. That > > puts all the tokens in your index, and then you > > may not need to have any synonym > > processing at query time since all the variants will > > already be in the index. > > > > As it is, you've replaced the words in the original with > > synonyms, essentially collapsed them down to a single > > word and then you have to do something at query time > > to get matches. If all the variants are in the index, you > > shouldn't have to. That's what I meant by "raw". > > > > Best, > > Erick > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Parvesh Garg <parv...@zettata.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Erick, > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Like I said, I'm an infant. > > > > > > We tried synonyms both ways. sea biscuit => seabiscuit and seabiscuit > => > > > sea biscuit and didn't understand exactly how it worked. But I just > > checked > > > the analysis tool, and it seems to work perfectly fine at index time. > > Now, > > > I can happily discard my own filter and 4 days of work. I'm happy I got > > to > > > know a few ways on how/when not to write a solr filter :) > > > > > > I tried the string "sea biscuit sea bird" with expand=false and the > > tokens > > > i got were seabiscuit sea bird at 1,2 and 3 positions respectively. But > > at > > > query time, when I enter the same term "sea biscuit sea bird", using > > > edismax and qf, pf2, and pf3, the parsedQuery looks like this: > > > > > > +((text:sea) (text:biscuit) (text:sea) (text:bird)) ((text:\"biscuit > > sea\") > > > (text:\"sea bird\")) ((text:\"seabiscuit sea\") (text:\"biscuit sea > > > bird\"))" > > > > > > What I wanted instead was this > > > > > > "+((text:seabiscuit) (text:sea) (text:bird)) ((text:\"seabiscuit sea\") > > > (text:\"sea bird\")) (text:\"seabiscuit sea bird\")" > > > > > > Looks like there isn't any other way than to pre-process query myself > and > > > create the compound word. What do you mean by "just query the raw > > string"? > > > Am I still missing something? > > > > > > Parvesh Garg > > > http://www.zettata.com > > > (This time I did remove my phone number :) ) > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Erick Erickson < > erickerick...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Why did you reject using synonyms? You can have multi-word > > > > synonyms just fine at index time, and at query time, since the > > > > multiple words are already substituted in the index you don't > > > > need to do the same substitution, just query the raw strings. > > > > > > > > I freely acknowledge you may have very good reasons for doing > > > > this yourself, I'm just making sure you know what's already > > > > there. > > > > > > > > See: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.SynonymFilterFactory > > > > > > > > Look particularly at the explanations for "sea biscuit" in that > > section. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Erick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Parvesh Garg <parv...@zettata.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One more thing, Is there a way to remove my "accidentally sent > phone > > > > number > > > > > in the signature" from the previous mail? aarrrggghhh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
