lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mhd Wrk <mhd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Shouldn't fuzzy version of a solr query always return a super set of its not-fuzzy equivalent
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:23:09 GMT
I'm using snowball stemmer and, you are correct, swimming has been stored
as swim.

Should I wrap snowball filter in a multiterm analyzer?

Thanks
 On Dec 4, 2013 2:02 PM, "Jack Krupansky" <jack@basetechnology.com> wrote:

> Ah... although the lower case filtering does get applied properly in a
> "multiterm" analysis scenario, stemming does not. What stemmer are you
> using? I suspect that "swimming" normally becomes "swim". Compare the debug
> output of the two queries.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Mhd Wrk
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Shouldn't fuzzy version of a solr query always return a super
> set of its not-fuzzy equivalent
>
> Debug shows that all terms are lowercased properly.
>
> Thanks
> On Dec 4, 2013 3:18 AM, "Erik Hatcher" <erik.hatcher@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Chances are you're not getting those fuzzy terms analyzed as you'd like.
>>  See debug (&debug=true) output to be sure.  Most likely the fuzzy terms
>> are not being lowercased.  See
>> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/MultitermQueryAnalysis for more details (this
>> applies to fuzzy, not just wildcard) terms too.
>>
>>         Erik
>>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 4:46 AM, Mhd Wrk <mhdwrk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm using the following query to do a fuzzy search on Solr 4.5.1 and am
>> > getting empty result.
>> >
>> > qt=standard&q=+(field1|en_CA|:Swimming~2 field1|en|:Swimming~2)
>> > +(field1|en_CA|:Goggle~1 field1|en|:Goggle~1) +(+startDate:[* TO
>> > 2013-12-04T00:23:00Z] -endDate:[* TO
>> > 2013-12-04T00:23:00Z])&start=0&rows=10&fl=id
>> >
>> > If I change it to a not fuzzy query by simply dropping tildes from the
>> > terms (see below) then it returns the expected result! Is this a bug?
>> > Shouldn't fuzzy version of a query always return a super set of its
>> > not-fuzzy equivalent?
>> >
>> > qt=standard&q=+(field1|en_CA|:Swimming field1|en|:Swimming)
>> > +(field1|en_CA|:Goggle field1|en|:Goggle) +(+startDate:[* TO
>> > 2013-12-04T00:23:00Z] -endDate:[* TO
>> > 2013-12-04T00:23:00Z])&start=0&rows=10&fl=id
>>
>>
>>
>

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