lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MultiFieldQueryParser with default AND and stopfilter
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:38:04 GMT
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 <evanchastelet@gmail.com> 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: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message