I faced a very similar requirement and solved it by indexing multiple tokens at the same place. For instance, say you're indexing the word "foxes". Index something like fox$ and foxes at the same position (see SynonymAnalyzer in Lucene In Action for an example). You probably MUST index the multiple terms with an increment gap of 0 (more later).
Example phrase "red foxes are plentiful" Now you have the capability of distinguishing between a stemmed and unstemmed version of the word and can search for exactly "red foxes". But if instead you want to search for the stemmed version, you can search for "red fox$". But "red fox" will NOT match. The reason you need to index these with an increment gap of 0 is so phrase queries work. If you let the gap increment for each token, and indexed a phrase like "red foxes are plentiful", then did a proximity search on "red plentiful"~2, it would fail because you'd have fox$ and foxes each taking up one position. But if fox$ and foxes both have the same position, it'll work. And it's all in the same index, one field, etc. Hope this helps Erick On Dec 12, 2007 1:25 PM, Lucifer Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > We've got a requirement that we need to give our users the ability to > search on exact phrases within a field, or, if they prefer, they can match > on plurals(either via stems, or another plural algorithm). However, the > cases are mutually exclusive, for example given the following field in the > index: > > IndexField1: "The quick brown dog jumped over the lazy fox" > > If the user chooses an exact phrase search such as "lazy dog jumped", then > it'll match, however, if they also choose an exact phrase and search for: > "lazy dogs" it shouldn't match. > > If the user chooses a plural search, then both of the above searches > should > match. > > So... the question really is: Can I do this all in one field, or will I > have to index the data twice, once in a field that has the exact text, and > in a second field in which I index the terms, and wordstack stems(or > plurals). > > If it's possible to do this in a single field, that would be much > preferred... > > Thanks for any help! > Lucifer >
