lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Varun Thacker <>
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 <> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Varun Thacker
> <> 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


Varun Thacker

View raw message