On 10/19/06, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Well I am planning on doing exactly that, given that we have seen some amount of user queries which need to match across fields. eg. "rowling goblet of fire" - need to match rowling in 1 field & "goblet of fire in another "hilary duff most wanted" - need to match "hilary duff" in 1 field & "most wanted" in another
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?
I need the ability to boost matches in certain fields higher than others. So both the above approaches do not work for me. Not all fields have the same analyzer, so thats another reason for not using 1 catch-all field. I am trying out DisjunctionMaxQueries and will soon move to it. I first want a phrase match to be done & if that fails then a non-phrase match. My problem is that I cant easily decide which phrases to build given a 4+word query from the user. Thanks Erik for the response, Hope I have done a better job of explaining my problem, -mek
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] > >
-- http://mekin.livejournal.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
