I believe it's a SpellChecker implementation deficiency, and Karl will probably suggest looking at LUCENE-626 as an alternative. And I'll ask you to please report back how much better than the contrib SpellChecker Karl's solution is.
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Felix Litman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:19:26 PM Subject: "did you mean" for multi-word queries implementation Did any one have success implementing "did you mean" feature for multi-word queries as described in Tom White's excellent "Did you Mean Lucene?" article? http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2005/08/09/didyoumean.html ...and more specifically, using the CompositeDidYouMeanParser implementation as described in "Supporting Composite Queries" section of the article? We are not able so far to get good "suggestions" to multi-word queries using this approach, so we are trying to determine if it is a Lucene issue, or our implementation... Thank you, Felix --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
