On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Michael Sokolov <soko...@ifactory.com> wrote:
> Can you do something approximately equivalent like:
>
> within(5, 'my', and('cat', 'dog')) ->
> within(5, 'my', within(5, 'cat', 'dog') )
>
> Might not be exactly the same in terms of distances (eg "cat x x x my x x x
> dog") might match the first and not the second... and "my x x x cat x x x
> dog" vice versa, but given that these are "sloppy" queries - maybe that's
> good enough :) ?
Hmm... this is a good idea. If it omits results which should have hit
then it won't be accepted, but with a bit of tweaking, it won't:
within(5, 'my', and('cat', 'dog')) -> within(5, 'my', within(10,
'cat', 'dog') )
This one should match everything from the original intent of the
query. It will still produce false positives, but not nearly as many
as the and(within, within) version I originally had.
(In searching for solutions on the net, I am finding a number of
interesting claims that using a slop of Integer.MAX_VALUE will somehow
simulate this sort of thing... but I am highly skeptical of such
claims and have a unit test which shows that it breaks as soon as you
put it inside a span-near...)
TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
