Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 139A911778 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 83730 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2014 17:54:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 83660 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2014 17:54:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 83648 invoked by uid 99); 13 Aug 2014 17:54:27 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:54:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of solr@elyograg.org designates 166.70.79.219 as permitted sender) Received: from [166.70.79.219] (HELO frodo.elyograg.org) (166.70.79.219) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:54:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by frodo.elyograg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935CD4A59; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:56 -0600 (MDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elyograg.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :references:subject:subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:from :date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mail; t=1407952436; bh=4b0mUN02jEac4M2Zj98aSSU1FVWaYrb6uolcfdF28/I=; b=pPnUpicR/JqW Cy/thDGV4OIDEJEagg37sq2A0RWOj6MXv6DiFcZEfPprWW467S3nGpHbcSPOEBLn KbMdGQS4oJCwwS4E7X/A0YuEQTyqXyuQBF40y4UTVQ2xySwo4p0La+zSsxZhJ9qJ RMJ6cv7fFETDK1shKH4dnZAYeUbSqwk= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at frodo.elyograg.org Received: from frodo.elyograg.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (frodo.elyograg.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id xnJdeLuXBgdf; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.2.0.182] (client175.mainstreamdata.com [209.63.42.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: elyograg@elyograg.org) by frodo.elyograg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 391BDB3A; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:54 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <53EBA62F.8060507@elyograg.org> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:51 -0600 From: Shawn Heisey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: ICUTokenizer acting very strangely with oriental characters References: <53EA8BD1.3060202@elyograg.org> <53EA9C72.80002@elyograg.org> <1892F28C-D8CA-4769-A713-29146BE8563D@gmail.com> <53EAB8FB.5010606@elyograg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 8/12/2014 9:13 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > In the table below, the "IsSameS" (is same script) and "SBreak?" (script > break = not IsSameS) decisions are based on what I mentioned in my previous > message, and the "WBreak" (word break) decision is based on UAX#29 word > break rules: > > Char Code Point Script IsSameS? SBreak? WBreak? > ------ -------------- ------- ------------- --------- > ----------- > 治 U+6CBB Han Yes No Yes > ] U+005D Common Yes No Yes > , U+002C Common Yes No Yes > 1 U+0031 Common -- -- -- > > First, script boundaries are found and used as token boundaries - in the > above case, no script boundary is found between "治" and "1" - and then > UAX#29 word break rules are used to find token boundaries inbetween script > boundaries - in the above case, there are word boundaries between each > character, but ICUTokenizer throws away punctuation-only sequences between > token boundaries. What should we use as a dividing character for situations like this? Should we tell our customer that they can't start keywords like this (for searching/filtering) with a number? Thanks, Shawn