lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Lea <>
Subject Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:42:26 GMT
Except that I think he has loads of other fields and wants to keep it simple.

But how about passing a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper instance as the
analyzer to MFQP?  Worth a try.


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Erick Erickson <> wrote:
> Could you just construct a BooleanQuery with the
> terms against different fields instead of using MFQP?
> e.g.
> bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
> bq.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
> etc...? If your QueryParser was created with a
> PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper I think you might get what you
> want....
> Note, bad pseudo code there...
> Best
> Erick
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
>> some fields that use and some fields that don't use a stopfilter. The
>> default operator of the MFQP is set to AND.
>> For example, if the search query is 'the project' (with 'the' included
>> in the stoplist) and the search fields are:
>> title - not using a stopfilter,
>> desc - using a stopfilter,
>> the parsed query becomes:
>> '+(title:the) +(title:project desc:project)'.
>> So, the problem is that docs that have the term 'the' only appearing in
>> their desc field are excluded from the results. So every query, with AND
>> as default operator, that has a stop word in it that only appears in
>> fields that use a stop filter will have this problem (or similar, if
>> there is at least one field X not using a stopfilter -> no match if a
>> stopword from query doesn't appear in field X). Thus, in this example, a
>> document with title: 'Lucene project' and desc: 'the open source search
>> software from Apache' will not be matched. In my opinion this is not the
>> expected behavior. What I'd like to see is that this doc is matched by
>> the given query. So, for each token in the query, that appears to be a
>> stopword in a field (i.e. some filter filters the token out), I want it
>> to be matched instead of not.
>> Anyone who knows a way to deal with this? I would prefer to keep using
>> the MFQP, since I need to support multiple fields, querytime boosting
>> and lucene syntax. Or is there a disadvantage by doing this?
>> Thanks in advance.
>> BR,
>> Elmer van Chastelet
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message