Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <25929456.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: stefcl <stefatwork@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Difference between 2.4.1 and 2.9.0 (possible regression?)
In-Reply-To: <25929358.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <25924689.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <9ac0c6aa0910160902v42022771mbe7583dda221a998@mail.gmail.com>
 <25929358.post@talk.nabble.com>


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:
>> 
>>     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1124
>> 
>> 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: http://www.nabble.com/Difference-between-2.4.1-and-2.9.0-%28possible-regression-%29-tp25924689p25929456.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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