lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack Krupansky" <>
Subject Re: dismax vs edismax
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:24:26 GMT
My view is that if we simply added an option to edismax to restrict the 
syntax to the very limited syntax of dismax, then we could have one, common 
xdismax query parser.

And then, why not simply rename the current Solr query parser to "classic" 
and make the new xdismax be the default Solr query parser.

And then... push a lot of the so-called "Solr-specific" features down into 
the Lucene query parser (abstracting away the specifics of Solr schema, Solr 
plugin, Solr parameter format, etc.) and then we can have one, unified query 
parser for Lucene and Solr. But... not everyone is persuaded!

-- Jack Krupansky

-----Original Message----- 
From: David Smiley (
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: dismax vs edismax

It was my hope that by now, the dismax & edismax distinction would be a 
of the past, such that we'd simply call this by one name, simply "dismax".
>From memories of various JIRA commentary, Jan wants this too and made great
progress enhancing edismax, but Hoss pushed back on edismax overtaking
dismax as "the" one new dismax.  I see this as very unfortunate, as having
both complicates things and makes it harder to write them in books ;-)  I'd
love to simply say "dismax" without having to say "edismax" or wonder if
when someone said "dismax" they meant "edismax", etc.  Does anyone see this
changing / progressing?

~ David

View this message in context:
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail: 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message