On 5-Oct-07, at 10:54 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: I am using a hand rolled query of the following form (implemented
with
: SpanNearQuery, not a sloppy PhraseQuery):
: a b c => +(a AND b AND c) OR "a b"~5 OR "b c"~5
:
: The obvious solution, "a b c"~5, is not applicable for my issues,
because I
: would like to allow for the possibility that a and b are near
each other in
: one field, while c is in another field.
Hmmm.. can you give some more concrete examples of what you mean by
this?
both in terms of the use case you are trying to satisfy, and in
terms of
how your current code works ... you don't have to post code or give
away
trade secrets, just describe it as a black box (ie: what is the
input?,
how do you know when to use fieldA vs fieldC,how do you decide when to
make a span query vs an OR query?
based one what youv'e described so far, it's hard to udnerstand
what it is
you are doing -- which is important to udnerstand how to help you
make it
better/faster.
I understand the OP to want a PhraseQuery that has an intention
(rather than side-effect) of doing proximity-based scoring.
"phrase query here"~1000 is the current hack that performs fine for N
< 3 query terms, but fails currently for N >= 3 since it requires
that all the terms be present. For larger queries, this effectively
nullifies the usefulness of the phrase query approach.
It doesn't seem to me that writing a variant of PhraseQuery that has
the desired functionality would be _too_ hard, but I haven't looked
into it in depth.
-Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
