lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastian Riemer <>
Subject AW: Search for ISBN-like identifiers
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:40:53 GMT
Thank you very much for taking the time to help me!

I'll definitely have a look at the link you've posted.

@ShawnHeisey Thanks too for shedding light on the wildcard behaviour!

Allow me one further question:
- Assuming that I define a separate field for storing the ISBNs, using the awesome analyzer
provider by Mr. Bill Dueber. How do I get that field copied into my general text field, which
is used by my QuickSearch-Input? Won't that field be processed again by the analyser defined
on the text field?
- Should I alternatively add more fields to the q-Parameter? As for now, I always have set
q=text:<whatever_I_want_to_search_here> but I guess one could try something like q=text:<whatever_i_want_to_search>+isbnspeciallookupfield:<whatever_i_want_to_search>

I don't really know about that last idea though, since the searches are propably OR-combined
which is not what I like to have.

Third option would be, to pre-process the distinction to where to look at in the solr in my
application of course. I.e. everything being a regex containing only numbers and hyphens with
length 13 -> don't query on field text, instead use field isbnspeciallookupfield

Many thanks again, and have a nice day!

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Erik Hatcher [] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 19:10
Betreff: Re: Search for ISBN-like identifiers

Sebastian -

There’s some precedent out there for ISBN’s.  Bill Dueber and the UMICH/code4lib folks
have done amazing work, check it out here - <>

  - Erik

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:08 AM, Sebastian Riemer <> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> TL;DR: Is there an easy way, to copy ISBNs with hyphens to the general text field, respectively
configure the analyser on that field, so that a search for the hyphenated ISBN returns exactly
the matching document?
> Long version:
> I've defined a field "text" of type "text_general", where I copy all 
> my other fields to, to be able to do a "quick search" where I set 
> q=text
> The definition of the type text_general is like this:
> <fieldType name="text_general" class="solr.TextField" 
> positionIncrementGap="100">
>      <analyzer type="index">
>        <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
>        <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" ignoreCase="true" 
> words="stopwords.txt" />
>        <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
>      </analyzer>
>      <analyzer type="query">
>        <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
>        <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" ignoreCase="true" 
> words="stopwords.txt" />
>        <filter class="solr.SynonymFilterFactory" 
> synonyms="synonyms.txt" ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/>
>        <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
>      </analyzer>
>    </fieldType>
> I now face the problem, that searching for a book with 
> text:978-3-8052-5094-8* does not return the single result I expect. 
> However searching for text:9783805250948* instead returns a result. 
> Note, that I am adding a wildcard at the end automatically, to further 
> broaden the resultset. Note also, that it does not seem to matter 
> whether I put backslashes in front of the hyphen or not (to be exact, 
> when sending via SolrJ from my application, I put in the backslashes, 
> but I don't see a difference when using SolrAdmin as I guess SolrAdmin 
> automatically inserts backslashes if needed?)
> When storing ISBNs, I do store them twice, once with hyphens (978-3-8052-5094-8) and
once without (9783805250948). A pure phrase search on both those values return also the single
> I learned that the StandardTokenizer splits up values from fields at index time, and
I've also learned that I can use the solrAdmin analysis and the debugQuery to help understand
what is going on. From the analysis screen I see, that given the value 9783805250948 at index-time
and 9783805250948* query-time both leads to an unchanged value 9783805250948 at the end.
> When given the value 978-3-8052-5094-8 for "Field Value (Index)" and 978-3-8052-5094-8*
for "Field Value (Query)"  I can see how the ISBN is tokenized into 5 parts. Again, the values
match on both sides (Index and Query).
> How does the left side correlate with the right side? My guess: The left side means,
"Values stored in field text will be tokenized while indexing as show here on the left". The
right side means, "When querying on the field text, I'll tokenize the entered value like this,
and see if I find something on the index" Is this correct?
> Another question: when querying and investigating the single document in solrAdmin, the
contents I see In the column text represents the _stored_ value of the field text, right?
> And am I correct that this actually has nothing to do, with what is actually stored in
 the index for searching?
> When storing the value 978-3-8052-5094-8, are only the tokenized values stored for search,
or is the "whole word" also stored? Is there a way to actually see all the values which are
stored for search?
> When searching text:" 978-3-8052-5094-8" I get the single result, so I guess the value
as a whole must also be stored in the index for searching?
> One more thing which confuses me:
> Searching for text: 978-3-8052-5094-8 gives me 72 results, because it 
> leads to searching for "parsedquery_toString":"text:978 text:3 
> text:8052 text:5094 text:8", but searching for text: 
> 978-3-8052-5094-8* gives me 0 results, this leads to 
> "parsedquery_toString":"text:978-3-8052-5094-8*",
> Why is the appended wildcard changing the behaviour so radically? I'd rather expect to
get something like "parsedquery_toString":"text:978 text:3 text:8052 text:5094 text:8*", 
and thus even more results.
> Btw. I've found and read an interesting blog about storing ISBNs and alikes here:
However, I already store my ISBN also in a separate field, of type string, which works fine
when I use this field for searching.
> Best regards, sorry for the enormously long question and thank you for listening.
> Sebastian

View raw message