Except that I think he has loads of other fields and wants to keep it simple.
But how about passing a PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper instance as the
analyzer to MFQP? Worth a try.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you just construct a BooleanQuery with the
> terms against different fields instead of using MFQP?
> e.g.
>
> bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
> bq.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>
> etc...? If your QueryParser was created with a
> PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper I think you might get what you
> want....
>
> Note, bad pseudo code there...
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Elmer <evanchaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a use case in which I use the MultiFieldQueryParser (MFQP) on
>> some fields that use and some fields that don't use a stopfilter. The
>> default operator of the MFQP is set to AND.
>> For example, if the search query is 'the project' (with 'the' included
>> in the stoplist) and the search fields are:
>>
>> title - not using a stopfilter,
>> desc - using a stopfilter,
>>
>> the parsed query becomes:
>>
>> '+(title:the) +(title:project desc:project)'.
>>
>> So, the problem is that docs that have the term 'the' only appearing in
>> their desc field are excluded from the results. So every query, with AND
>> as default operator, that has a stop word in it that only appears in
>> fields that use a stop filter will have this problem (or similar, if
>> there is at least one field X not using a stopfilter -> no match if a
>> stopword from query doesn't appear in field X). Thus, in this example, a
>> document with title: 'Lucene project' and desc: 'the open source search
>> software from Apache' will not be matched. In my opinion this is not the
>> expected behavior. What I'd like to see is that this doc is matched by
>> the given query. So, for each token in the query, that appears to be a
>> stopword in a field (i.e. some filter filters the token out), I want it
>> to be matched instead of not.
>>
>> Anyone who knows a way to deal with this? I would prefer to keep using
>> the MFQP, since I need to support multiple fields, querytime boosting
>> and lucene syntax. Or is there a disadvantage by doing this?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> BR,
>> Elmer van Chastelet
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
