From solr-user-return-141469-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@lucene.apache.org Wed May 30 05:01:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 42ABC180648 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 05:01:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 10529 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2018 03:01:08 -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 10488 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2018 03:01:07 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:01:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 00999D0C0E for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:01:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.192 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.192 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=metabrainz.org Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uCd_V_7Abf_r for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 2E8105F358 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 03:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x2-v6so37426279wmh.5 for ; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:01:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metabrainz.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oiExsKID/gdt1PtWbUWq/PGo6wzULO2x9Xq14gyPB4c=; b=YQbskqsxjxtaQUVeX1KItQXpuV1QeH2IZeiTm9bxxpIsrsK2IliES4R0L8xxzO7+Mt OdrUGDey61Ux5/OLh4zmCTSZYjHnXn207hTJHvcg+JM9emcEmBLKblgGR1537Z8iVCRg PP8EIgj+SMeVSyKj1IN7a2eT8vtqMMO8GlwLk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=oiExsKID/gdt1PtWbUWq/PGo6wzULO2x9Xq14gyPB4c=; b=SHC3fLdshDig/RjwkxnyLvIR5oe1q9pS+rQ1ISorq+hpnTDkfVUVwirxSWOKEAEK16 ROpdhqHI1MVMC++71Mmklwk8ECC4mc+toNhE470YDYm/gb5Aa7T4ssWcPjrfXTULRic9 h7s3+SZVOPUpU4yLLpdXUmB9OL7PzzYevcXvP/pGlALfK8mkDLnx2+yWymGWPJ53AekK Q4oQ/XYkAlg8zKLaWpBefljTwYm5hxeUdooOVgo9FHv1WgZdlvwHo7oCAcxm+aFqRrpo kNHvQXkCO1fbxhMFHYNiViD77P2yuXzJlwhkogVW3jZynoCZN+I3G1A7JEET7kgNsHv2 uJ0A== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E26g3JeozV0zlUgznkQSfEES0gRJ+aEvjFk8+CNlCUTHG/2Q2j5 EGyq/U4cQK5aiGHVOeISH01oUXoU5CUE56rKqPo6ww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLmQh0zXYqsQBijLnaM+MN6tuszt8+1YwGPrLd+pTrY1bF0Z5xEuFjZ15UTBw4joiyDSEI2uauScoVYg9Njbk4= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9383:: with SMTP id v125-v6mr88578wmd.58.1527649256650; Tue, 29 May 2018 20:00:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <266c5ee2-ddb5-af89-48de-58739339e7ea@sease.io> <1527585242887-0.post@n3.nabble.com> <1527615450110-0.post@n3.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: From: Sambhav Kothari Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 08:30:45 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Weird behavioural differences between pf in dismax and edismax To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048cd87056d638fe4" --00000000000048cd87056d638fe4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Wouldn't all of this depend entirely on the tokenizers used? I was talking about phrases in a multi-token sense. Regardless, I still think there should be similarity between dismax and edismax for the commonly parameters. (Either extend the edismax logic to dismax or vice versa) Regards, Sam On Tue, May 29, 2018, 23:16 Elizabeth Haubert < ehaubert@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > That would make sense. > Multi-term synonyms get into a weird case too. Should the single-term > words that have multi-term synonyms expand out? Or should the multi-term > synonyms that have single-term synonyms contract down and count as only a > single clause for pf2 or pf3. > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Alessandro Benedetti < > a.benedetti@sease.io> > wrote: > > > I don't have any hard position on this, It's ok to not build a phrase > boost > > if the input query is 1 term and it remains one term after the analysis > for > > one of the pf fields. > > > > But if the term produces multiple tokens after query time analysis, I do > > believe that building a phrase boost should be the correct > interpretation ( > > e.g. wi-fi with a query time analiser which split by - ) . > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > --------------- > > Alessandro Benedetti > > Search Consultant, R&D Software Engineer, Director > > Sease Ltd. - www.sease.io > > -- > > Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html > > > --00000000000048cd87056d638fe4--