lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jason rutherglen <>
Subject Re: Possible bug in copyField
Date Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:37:23 GMT
Could someone point me to where in the Solr code the Analyzer is applied to a query parser

----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Hatcher <>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:13:25 AM
Subject: Re: Possible bug in copyField

On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:41 PM, jason rutherglen wrote:
> Ok... Looks like its related to using SpanQueries (I hacked on the  
> XML query code).  I remember a discussion about this issue.  Not  
> something Solr specifically supports so my apologies.  However if  
> anyone knows about this feel free to post something to the Lucene  
> User list.  I will probably manually analyze the terms of the span  
> query and create a stemmed span query.  Is that a good idea?

Well, query terms need to match how they were indexed :)   So it's a  
good idea in that respect.  Stemming is chock full of fun (or  
frustrating) issues like this and I don't have any easy advice, but  
certainly if you're stemming terms during indexing you'll need to  
stem them for queries.   Unless you index the original terms in a  
parallel field or in the same positions as the stemmed ones, where  
you can play with searching with or without stemming on the query side.


> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Yonik Seeley <>
> To:
> Cc: jason rutherglen <>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:33:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible bug in copyField
> On 8/28/06, Chris Hostetter <> wrote:
>> : By looking at what is stored.  Has this worked for others?
>> the "stored" value of a field is allways going to be the pre- 
>> analyzed text
>> -- that's why the stored values in your "text" fields still have  
>> upper
>> case characters and stop words.
> And since the stored values will always be the same, it normally
> doesn't make sense to store the targets of copyField if the sources
> are also stored.
> Youy can test if stemming was done by searching for a different tense
> of a word in the field.
> -Yonik

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message