Can I simplify this bit of query boosting?
You might also want to have a look at FeatureField. This can be used to
associate a score with a particular term.
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:13 PM Hrvoje Lončar wrote:
>
> I had a situation when i wanted to sort a list of articles based on
> the
D )
> >
> > .add( new BoostQuery( parser.parse( "category:relnotes version:4*" ),
> > 40.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
> >
> > .add( new BoostQuery( parser.parse( "category:relnotes version:3*" ),
> > 30.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
> >
gory:relnotes version:3*" ),
> 30.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
>
> .add( new BoostQuery( parser.parse( "category:relnotes version:2*" ),
> 20.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
>
> .add( new BoostQuery( parser.parse( "category:relnotes version:1*" ),
> 10.0f ), Occur.S
t; ),
20.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
.add( new BoostQuery( parser.parse( "category:relnotes version:1*" ),
10.0f ), Occur.SHOULD )
.build();
I found through experimentation that the boost factors are not
multiplicative (as most of the explanations on the web implied) but are
sim
Hi there,
I’m developing custom java application with lucene 8.5.0.
I've tried to use DelimitedBoostTokenFilterFactory but I have a problem, so
please help me if I'm doing something wrong.
When I’m using BM25Similarity and delimitedBoost filter everything works as
expected, but if I switch to Bo
Hi there,
I’m developing custom java application with lucene 8.5.0.
I've tried to use DelimitedBoostTokenFilterFactory but I have a problem, so
please help me if I'm doing something wrong.
I’m using StandardAnalyzer for search, and my SynonymGraphFilter has
configuration as below:
Map synonymPa
other way?
>
>Best regards
>
>
>
>On 10/21/19 2:33 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>>> That is ok, and i can see this case would be best with BoostQuery
>and
>>> also i dont have to use lucene expression jar and its dependents.
>>>
&
9 2:33 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Hi Boris,
That is ok, and i can see this case would be best with BoostQuery and
also i dont have to use lucene expression jar and its dependents.
However, i am curious how to do this kind of field based boosting at
index time even though i will prefer the query t
Hi Boris,
> That is ok, and i can see this case would be best with BoostQuery and
> also i dont have to use lucene expression jar and its dependents.
>
> However, i am curious how to do this kind of field based boosting at
> index time even though i will prefer the quer
Hi,-
That is ok, and i can see this case would be best with BoostQuery and
also i dont have to use lucene expression jar and its dependents.
However, i am curious how to do this kind of field based boosting at
index time even though i will prefer the query time boosting methodology.
Best
Hi,
As I said, before that is a misuse of index-time boosting. In addition in
previous versions it did not even work correctly, because of query
normalization it was normalized away anyways. And on top, to change it your
have to reindex.
What you intend to do is a typical use case for query
d("field2", "string2", Field.Store.YES);
doc.add(f2);
f2.setBoost(1.0f);
But this fails with Lucene 7.7.2.
Probably it is more efficient and more flexible to fix this by using
BoostQuery.
However, what could be the fix with index time boosting? the code in my
previous po
Hi,
sorry I don't fully understand what you intend to do? If the boost values per
field are static and used with exactly same value for every document, it's not
needed a index time. You can just boost the field on the query side (e.g. using
BoostQuery). Boosting every document wit
baezrgocEvPhQkl4&m=MR2S9Z9HEge6s665mtGOFRHKGmuiVYkjp4tXOciYl7A&s=tMCjb5H5KivfJsp-BfABonpjelgp6hn9cBg2GScCmic&e=
doc example that You also gave be extended with NumericDocValuesField
part that needs to be done at indexing time boosting, too?
i see now why You meant that this is mixed
if boost is a single constant value, do we need the Javascript part
above?
Best regards
On 10/18/19 4:07 PM, baris.ka...@oracle.com wrote:
Uwe,-
can this
https://lucene.apache.org/core/7_7_2/expressions/org/apache/lucene/expressions/Expression.html
doc example that You also gave be extended
Uwe,-
can this
https://lucene.apache.org/core/7_7_2/expressions/org/apache/lucene/expressions/Expression.html
doc example that You also gave be extended with NumericDocValuesField
part that needs to be done at indexing time boosting, too?
i see now why You meant that this is mixed type of
ith a factor in each row.
Uwe
Am October 18, 2019 7:14:03 PM UTC schrieb baris.ka...@oracle.com:
>Uwe,-
>
>Two questions there:
>
>i guess this is applicable to TextField, too.
>
>And i was expecting a index writer object in the example for index time
>
>boosting.
>
>
Uwe,-
Two questions there:
i guess this is applicable to TextField, too.
And i was expecting a index writer object in the example for index time
boosting.
Best regards
On 10/18/19 2:57 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Sorry I was imprecise. It's a mix of both. The factors are stored per doc
October 18, 2019 6:50:40 PM UTC schrieb baris.ka...@oracle.com:
>Uwe,-
>
> Thanks, if possible i am looking for a pure Java methodology to do the
>
>index time boosting.
>
>This example looks like a search time boosting example:
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url
Uwe,-
Thanks, if possible i am looking for a pure Java methodology to do the
index time boosting.
This example looks like a search time boosting example:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lucene.apache.org_core_7-5F7
> this methodology seems sort of like discouraging using index time boosting.
Not really. Many use this all the time. It's one of the killer features of both
Solr and Elasticsearch. The problem was how the Document.setBoost()worked (it
did not work correctly, see below).
> Previous setBoos
Uwe,-
Thanks very much for the reply.
Is there a working example for this? Is this mentioned in the Lucene
Javadocs or any other docs so that i can look it?
this methodology seems sort of like discouraging using index time boosting.
Previous setBoost method call was fine and easy to use
Hi,
that's not true. You can do index time boosting, but you need to do that using
a separate field. You just index a numeric docvalues field (which may contain a
long or float value per document). Later you wrap your query with some
FunctionScoreQuery (e.g., use the Javascript function
It looks like index-time boosting (field) is not possible since Lucene
version 7.7.2 and
i was using before for another case the BoostQuery at search time for
boosting and
this seems to be the only boosting option now in Lucene.
Best regards
On 10/18/19 10:01 AM, baris.ka...@oracle.com
n top of English results, despite language
boosting.
This is because the Romanian part of the query consists of the stemmed and
unstemmed version of the word, but the English part of the query is just one
clause per field (title, content etc). Thus the Romanian results score roughtly
twice th
Hi all,
I am trying to upgrade to Lucene 6.6.0. I see that index time field level
boosting via Field#setBoost is now deprecated.
The suggested replacement is a FunctionScoreQuery at query time.
I am using the MultiTermQueryParser to search an arbitrary user-supplied
query string against
Hi all,
I'm trying to get a handle on how boosting is accomplished with span
queries. In queries when sub weights are created it is done with
explicitly setting needsScores to false. For example, here is the
implementation in SpanOrQuery:
@Override
public SpanWeight createW
Hi All,
i have read some discussions on impact of querynorm values in lucene score
when we specify more boosting.
Impact is, if boosting increases, querynorm decreases a lot, and so more
boosting does not results in final lucene score
Consider an example like, i need to order results based on
Found the answer here:
https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_1_0/MIGRATE.html
- On May 27, 2016, at 12:36 PM, danielb wrote:
> I've noticed that the Document.setBoost method appears to have been
> removed at some point.
> What should be used now to boost a document?
> ---
I've noticed that the Document.setBoost method appears to have been
removed at some point.
What should be used now to boost a document?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands,
for the quick response - that's a good hint -
>
> I simplified my code and realized, that the sorting DOES work, if I use
> full words. With "*", index boosting is not taken into account - see below
> my code, I used the two queries for testing:
>
> "Tetrach
Thanks Adrien for the quick response - that's a good hint -
I simplified my code and realized, that the sorting DOES work, if I use
full words. With "*", index boosting is not taken into account - see below
my code, I used the two queries for testing:
"Tetrachloroethane&q
What query did you run? Not all queries take index-time boosts into
account for scoring.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Markus Hegi - Nagavkar
wrote:
> Hello
>
> Downloaded & imported latest 5.2.1 version, but Index-scoring seems not to
> work for me:
>
> I index two types of documents:
> - For
Hello
Downloaded & imported latest 5.2.1 version, but Index-scoring seems not to
work for me:
I index two types of documents:
- For one, I boost every field with a factor 1
- For the other one, I boost every field with 0.01
When I search, I get documents of both types, but for ALL document an
id
Hi;
I use Solr 4.5.1 Due to my question is more related to Lucene I wanted to
ask this question here. Is there any example which uses payloads for
boosting at a custom function query?
Thanks;
Furkan KAMACI
chindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Michael van Rooyen [mailto:mich...@loot.co.za]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:39 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Document boosting and native ordering of
aive approach could be manually checking if the user query contains
> any Lucene syntax characters, like (+ - ~ ^ ) etc.
> Then splitting the user query into terms by white spaces, creating phrase
> queries from the combinations of terms and adding them as SHOULD
> (optionally wi
aphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Michael van Rooyen [mailto:mich...@loot.co.za]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 6:39 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Document boosting and native ordering of results
Not sure if there are any thoughts on this.
It def
g
> Subject: Re: Document boosting and native ordering of results
>
> Not sure if there are any thoughts on this.
>
> It definitely makes sense to assign a rank to each document in the index, so
> that all else being equal, documents are returned in order of rank. This is
> exact
Not sure if there are any thoughts on this.
It definitely makes sense to assign a rank to each document in the
index, so that all else being equal, documents are returned in order of
rank. This is exactly what the page rank is in Google's index, and
Google would be lost without it. This used
other people would need as well.
Is there any standard solution?
The naive approach could be manually checking if the user query contains
any Lucene syntax characters, like (+ - ~ ^ ) etc.
Then splitting the user query into terms by white spaces, creating phrase
queries from the combinations of terms a
other people would need as well.
Is there any standard solution?
The naive approach could be manually checking if the user query contains
any Lucene syntax characters, like (+ - ~ ^ ) etc.
Then splitting the user query into terms by white spaces, creating phrase
queries from the combinations of terms a
Hello. We've just upgraded to 4.3.1 from 2.9.2 and are having a problem
with native ordering of search results.
We always want documents returned in order of "rank", which for us is a
float value that we assign to each document at index time. Rank depends
in whether, for example, the item is
Hi Karl,
I guess I must have individual terms in my query, along side the SHOULD
phrases with slops, since I don't want to miss on results , even if the
terms distance is huge.
Slop - will enrich the phrases with them.
Shingles - Good idea. I'll index bi-grams if performance because an issue.
In
I just realized this mail contained several incomplete sentences. I blame
norwegian beers. Please allow me to try it once again:
The most simple solution is to make use of slop in PhraseQuery, SpanNearQuery,
etc(?). Also consider permutations of #isInOrder() with alternative query
boosts.
Eve
The most simple solution is to use of slop in PhraseQuery, SpanNearQuery,
etc(?). Also consider permutations of #isInOrder() with alternative query
boosts.
Even though slop will create a greater score the closer the terms are, it might
still in some cases (usually when combined with other subq
Hi. *I would like for hits that contain the search terms in proximity to
each other to be ranked higher than hits in which the terms are scattered
across the doc.
Wondering if there's a best practice to achieve that?*
I also want that all hits will contain all of the search terms (implicit
AND):
*
Hi Ivan,
i was aware of that thread i also asked to learn about overriding
DefaultSimilarity stuff or similar other approach.
Thanks.
On 30/04/2013 17:24, Ivan Brusic wrote:
There was a similar question asked a couple of months ago, with a great
answer by Uwe Schindler:
http://search-lucene.c
There was a similar question asked a couple of months ago, with a great
answer by Uwe Schindler:
http://search-lucene.com/m/Z2GP220szmS&subj=RE+What+is+equivalent+to+Document+setBoost+from+Lucene+3+6+inLucene+4+1+
I am still on Lucene 3.x, so I have not yet had a chance to mimic document
level bo
Hi,
we are migrating from 3.6 to 4.2. since Document.setBoost() method
removed we are trying to reimplement.
Currently we are using Document.setBoost() method as a scalar boost
factor across our multiple different indexes.
With the lucene 4.2 setting this factor by field.setBoost() is not
On 04/04/2013 23:26, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: At index time I boost the alias field of a small set of documents, setting the
: boost to 2.0f, which I thought meant equivalent to doubling the score this doc
: would get over another doc, everything else being equal.
1) you haven't shown us enough
: At index time I boost the alias field of a small set of documents, setting the
: boost to 2.0f, which I thought meant equivalent to doubling the score this doc
: would get over another doc, everything else being equal.
1) you haven't shown us enough details to be certian, but based on the
code
0 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Boosting numerical field
>
> Hi,
>
> Is this available only with Solr or would it work if I am using plain
Lucene?
>
> Regards
> Meeraj
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>
> >
> > i.e higher the value of the field, more relevant the hit
> > is.
>
> Yes it is possible. Like view count, popularity etc. You can use
> e(dismax)'s bf boosting function (additive or multiplicative.
>
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax#boost
is.
>
> Yes it is possible. Like view count, popularity etc. You can use e(dismax)'s
> bf boosting function (additive or multiplicative.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax#boost_.28Boost_Function.2C_multiplicative.29
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/so
> Is there anyway in a query, I can boost the relevance of a
> hit based on the value of a numerical field in the index.
> i.e higher the value of the field, more relevant the hit
> is.
Yes it is possible. Like view count, popularity etc. You can use e(dismax)'s bf
boosting f
Hi,
Is there anyway in a query, I can boost the relevance of a hit based on the
value of a numerical field in the index. i.e higher the value of the field,
more relevant the hit is.
Kind regards
Meeraj
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
the scores are computed.
Erik
On Sep 21, 2011, at 21:48 , balaji wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have a Dynamic "String Single" field present in my SOLR . but when I do
> a Query time boosting to that field it doesnt seem to honor it , Below I
> have mentioned all th
Hi all
I have a Dynamic "String Single" field present in my SOLR . but when I do
a Query time boosting to that field it doesnt seem to honor it , Below I
have mentioned all the QF parameters that are sent along
qf=body^4&qf=tags_h1^0.1&qf=tags_h2_h3^0.1&qf=tags_h4_h5
On 6/15/11 7:14 PM, liat oren wrote:
Ok, thanks a lot
On 15 June 2011 11:36, Ian Lea wrote:
Don't think so. The boost info is encoded and stored at index time.
Boosts that you set are multiplied by lengthNorm and then stored as a
coarse-grained float in fieldNorm values. There is a utilit
wmya V.B. wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Erick
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response.
>>>
>>> I would want the documents with values within #20-30# be ranked above the
>>> documents with some other values.
>>> Well, since there might be a case whe
In your examples the queries are essentially the same, so getting the
same results is expected, and getting different scores is also
expected since you are boosting in the first and not the second, and
the second is using a filter which doesn't contribute to scoring.
You'll need to be
Ok, thanks a lot
On 15 June 2011 11:36, Ian Lea wrote:
> Don't think so. The boost info is encoded and stored at index time.
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM, liat oren wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I indexed 4 million documents a
would want the documents with values within #20-30# be ranked above the
>> documents with some other values.
>> Well, since there might be a case where there are no documents in that
>> range, I would also prefer to have other documents listed too, somewhere
>> lower down t
Don't think so. The boost info is encoded and stored at index time.
--
Ian.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM, liat oren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I indexed 4 million documents and used boosting factors for each document at
> indexing time.
>
> I would like to cancel that boos
Hmm, something went wrong. My mail client swapped dates or displayed
your initial question as new :? Threading fail ;)
Sorry for this :)
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 12:28 +0200, Elmer wrote:
> Let's try again ;)
>
> If I understand you correctly, you want the returned results to include
> all documents
Let's try again ;)
If I understand you correctly, you want the returned results to include
all documents matching some query, also documents that not satisfy the
specified range ("like 20 to 30"), but results that satisfy this range
should appear higher in the list.
If so, first you have to find
il.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:22 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Boosting a document at query time, based on a field value/range
>
> Hi
>
> I am not getting the replies to my inbox ...hence the delay in responding.
>
> >>I think
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:22 +0200, Sowmya V.B. wrote:
> [...] "OR **field**:[20 TO 30]^10"
>
> Well, my question is partly answered with this clarification. But, I am
> still wondering how to do that programmatically.
> the (20-30) range is not a fixed range. Its chosen by the user. It can as
> we
Hi,
I indexed 4 million documents and used boosting factors for each document at
indexing time.
I would like to cancel that boosting. Is there a way to do that without
re-indexing all of them?
Many thanks,
Liat
l, since there might be a case where there are no documents in that
> range, I would also prefer to have other documents listed too, somewhere
> lower down the rankings.
>
> Also, I don't want to do a simple sort on the results what lucene gives,
> with its own ranking function.
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 10:38 +0200, Sowmya V.B. wrote:
> I am looking for a possibility of boosting a given document at query-time,
> based on the values of a particular field : instead of plainly sorting the
> normal lucene results based on this field.
I think you misunderstand Eric
the rankings.
Also, I don't want to do a simple sort on the results what lucene gives,
with its own ranking function.
I am looking for a possibility of boosting a given document at query-time,
based on the values of a particular field : instead of plainly sorting the
normal lucene results bas
I take it from this that you want documents with values #outside# 20-30
to still be found? In that case you can do something like add a clause like:
OR field:[20 TO 30]^10
or similar.
Best
Erick
BTW, is there a reason you decided not to use Solr? In many ways it's
easier than straight Lucene...
Hi All
I have joined the group only today..and began working with lucene only
recently.
My problem: I want to boost the ranking of certain documents, based on the
values of certain fields.
For example, if the field has a range of values from 0 to 100 and the user
chooses something like 20 to 30
Have you tried using the explain method on a Searcher and examining the results?
Best
Erick
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Clemens Wyss wrote:
> I have a minimal unit test in which I add three documents to an index. The
> documents have two fields "year" and "descritpion".
> doc1(year = "2007"
I have a minimal unit test in which I add three documents to an index. The
documents have two fields "year" and "descritpion".
doc1(year = "2007", desc = "text with 2007 and 2009")
doc2(year = "2009", desc = "text with 2007 and 2009")
doc3(year = "2008", desc = "text with 2007 and 2009")
To searc
Hi All,
Can some one pls direct me on how to boost the result when specific keywords
are found while searching the document?
example:
1. While indexing the documents A, B and C, I do not boost any of these
documents. (Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.ANALYZED) and setBoost(1.0)
2. Now I read documen
Hi Cristina,
Lucene scores each doc per search based on its scoring formula. As there is
a lot of query related normalizing and other component, the scores for docs
change as the query changes.
About understanding how boosting affects the score in detail, you may read
about *lucene scoring* at
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:43 PM, HAIDUC SONIA wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a few questions about boosting in Lucene. I am running a research
> project where I have, for each document, 4 fields: f1, f2, f3, f4. I also
> have a set of queries for my corpus, and I know the relevan
Hello,
I have a few questions about boosting in Lucene. I am running a research
project where I have, for each document, 4 fields: f1, f2, f3, f4. I also
have a set of queries for my corpus, and I know the relevant documents for
each of these queries. What I want to study is how boosting affects
Hi,
We've been using solr for several years now with great success. Recently, we
modified a boost query to reference a dynamic sint field defined as follows:
We index a handful of these fields per document. Their field names are of the
form:
__specialty_percent_i
Examples:
_5
Thanks Ian,
Yup that would do the trick for me, it seems.
Also I would like to say that the following also worked, I only
realized it after I went through the scores coming from my results
step by step:
KeywordAnalyzer + Index.ANALYZED (index-time norms were present)
Cheers!
On Thu, Nov 18, 20
Have you tried explicitly setting norms on/off the way you want with
Field.setOmitNorms(boolean)?
--
Ian.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Pulkit Singhal
wrote:
> Based on my experimentation and what it says in the Lucene 2nd edition book:
> "Using a KeywordAnalyzer on special fields during in
Based on my experimentation and what it says in the Lucene 2nd edition book:
"Using a KeywordAnalyzer on special fields during indexing would
eliminate the use of Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS during indexing and
replace it with Index.ANALYZED."
I guess that there is no way to use KeywordAnalyzer du
Greetings!
When using KeywordAnalyzer for indexing a field which has the
Field.Index.ANALYZED option selected.
Does the use of KeywordAnalyzer automatically mean that there is no
point in trying to set the index-time boosts on that field in the
document because it will be treated as a full token
hat do others do?
>
> (I would use IndexWriter.updateDocument "which deletes and readds the entire
> document".)
>
> Andy
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/index-field-used-for-boosting-rank-tp876181p876181.html
&g
Is there any way to
avoid this? What do others do?
(I would use IndexWriter.updateDocument "which deletes and readds the entire
document".)
Andy
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/index-field-used-for-boosting-rank-tp876181p876181.html
Sent from the
sday, February 02, 2010 9:32 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: ComplexPhraseQueryParser (Expanded Form and Boosting)
> Second concern: boosting a
> phrase ("java developer"^10.0) doesn't seem to be applied
> when you look at the result explanations when using the
>
> Second concern: boosting a
> phrase ("java developer"^10.0) doesn't seem to be applied
> when you look at the result explanations when using the
> ComplexPhraseQueryParser - it's respected on single word
> queries and it's respected on phrases using the
ueryParser-%28Expanded-Form-and-Boosting%29-tp27411736p27419562.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-
that Wildcard Queries, of the form "quality operations
> providing quality food services job requirements: click here to
> apply for this job*", for instance, take 2-5 seconds to execute and
> require boosting the maxClauseCount to > 40K. I'm hard-pressed to
>
xecute and require boosting the maxClauseCount
to > 40K. I'm hard-pressed to believe that we have over 40K unique words that
have 'job' as a prefix in our index so the first question is, how does one see
the expanded form of this query? We've installed the latest Luke for Lucen
ayload boosting
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 3:23 PM
> Hi,
> I have a field and a wighted synonym map.
> I have indexed the synonyms with the weight as payload.
> my code snippet from my filter
>
> *public Token next(final Token reusa
You might get an answer on the solr list. This is the lucene users list.
Simon
On Nov 8, 2009 2:24 PM, "David Ginzburg" wrote:
Hi,
I have a field and a wighted synonym map.
I have indexed the synonyms with the weight as payload.
my code snippet from my filter
*public Token next(final Token reu
Hi,
I have a field and a wighted synonym map.
I have indexed the synonyms with the weight as payload.
my code snippet from my filter
*public Token next(final Token reusableToken) throws IOException *
*. *
*. *
*.*
* Payload boostPayload;*
*
*
*for (Synonym sy
> thanks, I understand how boosting works, what I need will
> be a boost in the query that will increase the score of a page if all
> keywords/query is found in the page to increase its ranking.
You can find answer of your question in the last two messages at this thread:
http://www.n
thanks, I understand how boosting works, what I need will be a boost in the
query that will increase the score of a page if all keywords/query is found
in the page to increase its ranking.
I tried all sort of combination and it did not work. Anyone can provide any
suggestion?
Simon Willnauer
revise your boosting. I don't know if you have field
boost set but it seems it would make more sense in your usecase as far
as I can tell.
In general make sure you understand what the different boosts are used
for - this snippet from the wiki might help you:
What is the difference between fiel
83647^1.5
Is there anyway I can add an additional query that will give an additional
boost to results that has both the keyword in it?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Query-Boosting-tp24913967p24913967.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java
1 - 100 of 355 matches
Mail list logo
