Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9958 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2010 14:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2010 14:53:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 87924 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2010 14:53:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 87694 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2010 14:53:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 87687 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2010 14:53:30 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:53:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [85.25.71.29] (HELO mail.troja.net) (85.25.71.29) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:53:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.troja.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD217D36009 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:53:01 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.troja.net Received: from mail.troja.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (megaira.troja.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AhjzLMlrog1s for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:52:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from VEGA (WDC-MARE.marum.de [134.102.249.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.troja.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CD2BD36008 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:52:56 +0100 (CET) From: "Uwe Schindler" To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Is this misleading? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:53:20 +0100 Message-ID: <00d401cb8a55$0113d000$033b7000$@thetaphi.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D5_01CB8A5D.62D92260" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ7noRj65GL+yLHod+M6Y7gFeyeDZIdbLhg Content-Language: de ------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01CB8A5D.62D92260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It must be "field". So if you enable term verctors you can use fast-vector-highighter, else the field must be stored to be highlighted and the stored field must be reanalyzed. ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:43 PM To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Is this misleading? This *extremely* helpful page: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase?highlight=(termvector)|(re trieve)|(contents) Says: 2. stored must always be true for highlighting. If you also add both termVectors and termOffsets, this can be used to boost performance. (Without termVectors/termOffsets, Solr needs to reanalyze the whole document to perform highlighting.) If you furthermore add termPositions, additional speedup may be possible. Note, that you must index the field in order to be able to use termVectors, termOffsets and termPositions. Is "document" correct here or should it be "field"? If the latter I'll change it. Erick ------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01CB8A5D.62D92260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It must be „field“. So if you enable term verctors you = can use fast-vector-highighter, else the field must be stored to be = highlighted and the stored field must be = reanalyzed.

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de<= /p>

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

 

From:= = Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, = November 22, 2010 3:43 PM
To: = solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Is this = misleading?

 

This = *extremely* helpful page:

 

Says:

2. stored must always be true = for highlighting. If you also add both termVector<= /span>s and termOffsets, this can = be used to boost performance. (Without termVector<= /span>s/termOffsets, Solr needs to = reanalyze the whole document to perform = highlighting.) If you furthermore add termPositions, additional speedup = may be possible. Note, that you must index the field in order to be able = to use termVector<= /span>s, termOffsets and = termPositions.

 

Is "document" = correct here or should it be "field"? If the latter I'll = change it.

 

Erick=

------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01CB8A5D.62D92260--