Thanks for pointing me to the right class to use.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:23 AM, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes that's right, my mistake.
>
> In fact even after reading your comment I was puzzled
> because PhraseScorer indeed requires *all* phrase-positions
> to be satisfied in order to m
by SpellChecker) at appropriate positions for each
term as I construct the final phrase query object.
Do you agree that this should work too?
On Dec 4, 2007 1:22 AM, Doron Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See below -
>
> smokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007 05:1
panding the query. If your
> index is distributed over 10 machines and is 1T, you really,
> really, really care.
>
> And under any circumstances, you can always generate
> your own query of the second form by a bit of pre-processing.
>
> More info please.
>
> Best
&
My question is for anyone who has experience with Lucene's SpellChecker,
especially around its performance characteristics/ramifications.
1. Given the fact that SpellChecker expands a query by adding all the
permutations of potentially misspelled word, how does it perform in general?
2. How are o
Suppose I have an index containing the terms impostor, imposter, fraud, and
fruad, then presumably regardless of whether I spell impostor and fraud
correctly, Lucene SpellChecker will offer the improperly spelled versions as
corrections. This means that the phrase "The login fraud involves an
impos
My question is for anyone who has experience with Lucene's SpellChecker,
especially around its performance characteristics/ramifications.
1. Given the fact that SpellChecker expands a query by adding all the
permutations of potentially misspelled word, how does it perform in general?
2. How are o
