lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From stefcl <>
Subject Re: Difference between 2.4.1 and 2.9.0 (possible regression?)
Date Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:39:08 GMT

Apologies, my previous message crossed yours.
Good to hear that it's not intended behavior, I was worried.

thanks for the fix!  
Kind regards

stefcl wrote:
> Thanks,
> Even if you add to the example a document called "giga", I'm not sure that
> searching  "giga~0.8" would return anything. 
> It seems a bit weird because an exact search (which I guess should be more
> or less equivalent to a fuzzy search with nearly ~1 similarity) would
> actually return some results.
> I guess it was part of an attempt to prevent unsignificant terms from
> having unreasonable impact to the score, but can we still call that factor
> "minimum similarity" then?
> I really suspect there's something broken here, or perhaps I just fail to
> understand the logic. The way it worked in 2.4.1 seemed much more
> interesting, now even a 100% exact match isn't enough for the query to
> succeed, in my opinion this should have been implemented as a completely
> different query type.
> I have no intention in making any offense here, I'm just trying to
> understand...
> Kind regards
> Michael McCandless-2 wrote:
>> This looks to have been caused by:
>> Which short circuits all matching if the term is too short relative to
>> the min similarity.  But I guess something must be wrong w/ the
>> formula.
>> I'll reopen that issue & mark fix for 2.9.1.

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

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

View raw message