> In Lucene scores should go up for more relevancy.
That is the case for combining child scores with min. min() is monotonic --
if its arguments increase, the result does not decrease, it only stays the
same or increases, so I think it is a valid scoring operation for Lucene.
And it makes some log
Hi all,
Once again, thanks for the responses! After thinking about this a bit more,
I think Michael's response makes sense now. I do agree that partial matches
shouldn't be ranked higher than conjunctive matches, so I think it doesn't
make sense in my use case to use a DisjunctiveMinQuery (I think
Hi,
in that case you should use something like 1/x as your scoring function
in the sub-clauses. In Lucene scores should go up for more relevancy.
This must also apply for function scoring.
Uwe
Am 09.11.2023 um 19:14 schrieb Marc D'Mello:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the response! So to answer yo
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the response! So to answer your first question, yes this would
keep the lowest score from the matching sub-scorers. Our use case is that
we have a custom term-level score overriding term frequency and we want to
take the min of that as part of our scoring function. Maybe it'
Hi Marc,
Can you clarify what the semantics of a DisjunctionMinQuery would be? Would
you keep the score for the *lowest* scoring disjunct (plus some tiebreaker
applied to the other matching disjuncts)?
I'm trying to imagine how that would work compared to the classic DisMax
use-case. Say I'm sear
