I'm sure you are right and I'm wrong - sorry for the waste of space.
However I still think you should build it all up in code.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Elmer <evanchaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Using MFQP with AND
>> everywhere you'll never get a match if some fields don't contain all
>> of the search terms"
>
> I'm sorry to say, but that's not true I guess, look how the query parser
> parses the following query:
> 'information retrieval'
> --parsed-to-->
> +(title:inform description:inform authors.name:information)
> +(title:retriev description:retriev authors.name:retrieval)
>
> in human language: both 'information' and 'retrieval' should appear
> somewhere, doesn't matter in which fields.
>
> So if 'information' only appears in the title, and 'retrieval' only in
> the description, there is a match (and there is, I just tested it ;))
>
> Br,
> Elmer
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 16:19 +0100, Ian Lea wrote:
>> Then surely the stop word issue is a red herring. Using MFQP with AND
>> everywhere you'll never get a match if some fields don't contain all
>> of the search terms.
>>
>> Even if Erick's exact answer won't apply, I suspect that building up a
>> composite boolean query is the way to go.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Elmer <evanchaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I made a mistake here:
>> >
>> >> Unfortunately, the solution that Erick gave won't do the trick
>> >> > > bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>> >> > > bq.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>> >> This still won't match documents where both 'the' and 'project' appear
>> >> in DIFFERENT fields (i.e. a document with title: 'Lucene project' and
>> >> desc: 'the open source search software from Apache')
>> >
>> > Correction: this will actually match the example query ('the project'),
>> > but this solution won't work if the search query is changed to: 'the
>> > search project', since 'search' is not in the title field.
>> >
>> > Br,
>> > Elmer
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 16:35 +0200, Elmer wrote:
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> I already use the PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper (by Hibernate Search) ;)
>> >> And that's where the problem comes in: different fields using different
>> >> analyzers (some with, some without a stopfilter). For each term
>> >> (tokenized by MFQP itself?), it applies the given analyzer on each
>> >> field. If the analyzer returns no token (occurs on 'the' when using the
>> >> PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper for the desc field), that field will not be
>> >> included in the clause for that term. (see/re-read the example, maybe
>> >> it's more clear what I mean now).
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, the solution that Erick gave won't do the trick
>> >> > > bq.add(qp.parse("title:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>> >> > > bq.add(qp.parse("desc:(the AND project)", SHOULD))
>> >> This still won't match documents where both 'the' and 'project' appear
>> >> in DIFFERENT fields (i.e. a document with title: 'Lucene project' and
>> >> desc: 'the open source search software from Apache')
>> >>
>> >> I hope it's clear what I mean :) Otherwise, let me know!
>> >>
>> >> BR,
>> >> Elmer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 14:42 +0100, Ian Lea wrote:
>> >> > 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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
