lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack Krupansky" <j...@basetechnology.com>
Subject Re: FuzzyQuery vs SlowFuzsyQuery docs? -- was: Re: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2667) Fix FuzzyQuery's defaults, so its fast.
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:41:17 GMT
While we're waiting for Robert to respond... I would argue that 
SlowFuzzyQuery should be un-deprecated and moved from sandbox back into 
Lucene proper since it does have value in SOME cases. Actually, I would 
argue that it should be recombined with "fast" FuzzyQuery (joined at the hip 
as it were) and simply document that if you use a max edit distance > 2 then 
it will be "slow".

-- Jack Krupansky

-----Original Message----- 
From: Chris Hostetter
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:25 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: FuzzyQuery vs SlowFuzsyQuery docs? -- was: Re: [jira] [Commented] 
(LUCENE-2667) Fix FuzzyQuery's defaults, so its fast.


Is there any reason why SlowFuzzyQuery shouldn't be in the class level
javadocs for FuzzyQuery ?

: Hi Francisco: The core FuzzyQuery does not support edit distances > 2,
: because the automatons used for this would be too big and slow. If you
: really want distances > 2, use
: 
http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_0_0-BETA/sandbox/org/apache/lucene/sandbox/queries/SlowFuzzyQuery.html
: from the sandbox module (lucene-sandbox.jar). This one is the same
: algorithm as the old 3.x FuzzyQuery (and is as slow).


-Hoss

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


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


Mime
View raw message