Plus, admin analysis page displays nicely intermediate tokens produced by each component. Very nice feature I think. If you plug lucene analyzer, you won't be able to see intermediate results.
Ahmet On Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:59 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: But the latter gives users the flexibility of putting together any T+F1....FN chains they want and easily adding their own custom Fx to the mix. Otis -- Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > Ahmet, > > So, this is an interesting difference between Lucene (and ES) and > Solr. In Lucene, the idea seems to be that you package up a reusable > analysis chain as an analyzer. Saying 'use analyzer X' is less complex > than saying 'use tokenizer T and filters F1, F2, ...'. > > thanks, > benson > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Benson, > > > > Using lucene analyzer in schema.xlm should be last resort. For very > specific reasons : if you have an existing analyzer, etc. > > > > Ahmet > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:52 PM, Benson Margulies < > ben...@basistech.com> wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters never > > mentions an Analyzer class. > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPlugins talks about subclasses of > > SolrAnalyzer as ways of delivering an entire analysis chain and still > > 'minding the gap'. > > > > Anyone care to offer a comparison of the viewpoints? > > >
