lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Varun Thacker <varunthacker1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Improving DirectSpellChecker
Date Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:39:14 GMT
Actually that was what I ended up doing although I thought this approach
could have it's merits.

Just for argument's sake, if we could have complex analyzers on a field
wouldn't it have better recall for spell suggestions sacrificing on the
precision although. Would that be a bad idea? Also DirectSpellChecker is
probably not where this should be in. Maybe in SpellChecker or a new spell
checker. Or do you think it's possible that something like this should sit
outside lucene.


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Varun Thacker
> <varunthacker1989@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was looking at the results from the spellchecker. So If I have a field
> > where the terms get analyzed the results shown are the analyzed form as a
> > suggestion. Example, for Battery the spell suggestion if one makes a
> mistake
> > would be batteri.
> >
>
> I don't think you should use such a field for spellchecking, instead
> just something very simple like standardtokenizer + lowercase for the
> spellcheck field.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 


Regards,
Varun Thacker
http://www.vthacker.in/

Mime
View raw message