What is the use case you're trying to solve? It doesn't make sense to me that you want to take a query from a user and split it over fields under the covers.
Why not just index those separate fields into the yet a third field and search there? Or why not just put it all into one field in the first place? The more details of what you're trying to do you provide, the better answers you'll get <G>.. Best Erick On 10/18/06, Mekin Maheshwari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Resending, with the hope that the search gurus missed this. Would really appreciate any advise on this. Would not want to reinvent the wheel & I am sure this is something that would have been done. Thanks, mek On 10/16/06, Mek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone dealt with the problem of constructing sub-queries given a > multi-word query ? > > Here is an example to illustrate what I mean: > > user queries for -> A B C D > right now I change that query to "A B C D" A B C D to give phrase > matches higher weightage. > > What might happen though, is that the user is looking for a document > where "A B" in Field1 & "C D" in Field2. > > So I should ideally be constructing the query as : > > "A B C D"^20 "A B"^10 "C D"^10 "B C D"^15 "A B C"^15 A B C D > > Has someone solved this problem, are there other ways to handle this problem ? > > > Thanks, > mek. > -- http://mekin.livejournal.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
