lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Stults <sstu...@opensourceconnections.com>
Subject Re: SpellingQueryConverter and query parsing
Date Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:54:17 GMT
Thank you, James, I'll do that.

ResponseBuilder carries around with it the QParser, Query, and query
string, so getting suggestions from parsed query terms shouldn't be a big
deal. What looks to be hard is rewriting the original query with the
suggestions. That's probably why the regex is used instead of the parser.

-Scott

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Dyer, James <James.Dyer@ingramcontent.com>
wrote:

> Having worked with the spellchecking code for the last few years, I've
> often wondered the same thing, but I never looked seriously into it.  I'm
> sure there's probably some serious hurdles, hence the Query Converter.  The
> easy thing to do here is to use "spellcheck.q", and then pass in
> space-delimited keywords.  This bypasses the query converter entirely for
> custom situations like yours.
>
> But please, if you find a way to plug the actual query parser into
> spellcheck, consider opening a jira & contributing the code, even if what
> you end up with isn't in a final polished state for general use.
>
> James Dyer
> Ingram Content Group
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Stults [mailto:sstults@opensourceconnections.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:26 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: SpellingQueryConverter and query parsing
>
> Hello!
>
> SpellingQueryConverter "parses" the incoming query in sort of a quick and
> dirty way with a regular expression. Is there a reason the query string
> isn't parsed with the _actual_ parser, if one was configured for that type
> of request? Even better, could the parsed query object be added to the
> response in some way so that the query wouldn't need to be parsed twice?
> The individual terms could then be visited and substituted in-place without
> needing to worry about preserving the meaning of operators in the query.
>
> The motive in my question is, I may need to implement a QueryConverter
> because I'm using a custom parser, and using that parser in the
> QueryConverter itself seems like the right thing to do. That wasn't done
> though in SpellingQueryConverter, so I wan't to find out why before I go
> blundering into a known minefield.
>
>
> Thanks!
> -Scott
>



-- 
Scott Stults | Founder & Solutions Architect | OpenSource Connections, LLC
| 434.409.2780
http://www.opensourceconnections.com

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