lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hoss Man (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-933) QueryParser can produce empty sub BooleanQueries when Analyzer proudces no tokens for input
Date Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:45:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-933?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12508054
] 

Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-933:
---------------------------------

woops ... sorry doron, i actually reviewed these patches the other day, but aparently i got
side tracked and never commented.

i think you made the right choice with the backwards_comapatible.patch 

> QueryParser can produce empty sub BooleanQueries when Analyzer proudces no tokens for
input
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-933
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-933
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Doron Cohen
>         Attachments: lucene-933_backwards_comapatible.patch, lucene-933_nullify.patch
>
>
> as triggered by SOLR-261, if you have a query like this...
>    +foo:BBB  +(yak:AAA  baz:CCC)
> ...where the analyzer produces no tokens for the "yak:AAA" or "baz:CCC" portions of the
query (posisbly because they are stop words) the resulting query produced by the QueryParser
will be...
>   +foo:BBB +()
> ...that is a BooleanQuery with two required clauses, one of which is an empty BooleanQuery
with no clauses.
> this does not appear to be "good" behavior.
> In general, QueryParser should be smarter about what it does when parsing encountering
parens whose contents result in an empty BooleanQuery -- but what exactly it should do in
the following situations...
>  a)  +foo:BBB +()
>  b)  +foo:BBB ()
>  c)  +foo:BBB -()
> ...is up for interpretation.  I would think situation (b) clearly lends itself to dropping
the sub-BooleanQuery completely.  situation (c) may also lend itself to that solution, since
semanticly it means "don't allow a match on any queries in the empty set of queries".  ....
I have no idea what the "right" thing to do for situation (a) is.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message