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 youngestachiever@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:42:53 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAPzrt-0X9KGuJCr35XvgM+g3=u7rmPMfqp4c5RWru7qamy_NEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Grouping and tokens
From: Ramprakash Ramamoorthy <youngestachiever@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04308562244b2504d6005228

--f46d04308562244b2504d6005228
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello all,

     From the grouping javadoc, I read that fields that are supposed to be
grouped should not be tokenized. I have an use case where the user has the
freedom to group by any field during search time.

     Now that only tokenized fields are eligible for grouping, this is
creating an issue with my search. Say for instance the book "*Fifty shades
of grey*" when tokenized and searched for "*shades*" turns up in the
result. However this is not the case when I have it as a non-tokenized
field (using StandardAnalyzer-Version4.1).

     How do I go about this? Is indexing a tokenized and non-tokenized
version of the same field the only go? I am afraid its way too costly!
Thanks in advance for your valuable inputs.

-- 
With Thanks and Regards,
Ramprakash Ramamoorthy,
India,
+91 9626975420

--f46d04308562244b2504d6005228--