You can read some discussion here:
http://search-lucene.com/m/Z2GP220szmS&subj=RE+What+is+equivalent+to+Document+setBoost+from+Lucene+3+6+inLucene+4+1+
.
I wrote a post on how to achieve that with the new API:
http://shaierera.blogspot.com/2013/09/boosting-documents-in-lucene.html.
Shai
On Sun,
Karl Wettin skrev:
Michael McCandless skrev:
Karl Wettin wrote:
Is it so that document and field boosts are omitted together with
Field#setOmitNorms? By setting lengthNorm to 1f in the Similarity for
these fields and not omitting norms would fix it?
>
Yes and yes.
I'm not sure if I do these
Michael McCandless skrev:
Karl Wettin wrote:
Is it so that document and field boosts are omitted together with
Field#setOmitNorms? By setting lengthNorm to 1f in the Similarity for
these fields and not omitting norms would fix it?
>
Yes and yes.
I'm not sure if I do these things backwards or
Yes and yes.
Mike
Karl Wettin wrote:
Is it so that document and field boosts are omitted together with
Field#setOmitNorms? By setting lengthNorm to 1f in the Similarity
for these fields and not omitting norms would fix it?
karl
---
So we upgraded to SOLR 1.2, which uses Lucene 2.1 or so, and the problem
went away. Thanks all the help, folks!
Mike
On 1/30/08, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike, I think this issue probably belongs in the Solr lists since
> it looks like you're indexing through it.
> I did a
Hi Mike, I think this issue probably belongs in the Solr lists since
it looks like you're indexing through it.
I did a really quick test re-adding a Solr example document but adding
a document boost of 10...
the fieldNorm increased by a factor of 10 as expected (explain below).
5.651948 = (MATCH
If you look at DocumentsWriter at line 715 you will see the docBoost get
set to the docBoost you specified. At 1376 you will see boost get
assigned docBoost. Then at 1509 you see how the doc boost is multiplied
by the field boost: * boost *= field.getBoost();
*
So now you have the default fiel
Thanks for your help, Mark.
We can start by posting our SOLR config files, although I'm not sure if that
will be helpful (we don't see much in there regarding boosts). See
attached. How SOLR actually configures and interfaces with Lucene is a bit
of an unknown to us, so I'm not sure we can get d
I would say you def misconfigured something. Doubling your doc boost
will double your fieldNorm approximately (I think the precision isn't
perfect).
I don't know what your doing wrong in such a small test, but your
fieldNorm should *not* be exploding like that.
Can you post some code?
- Mar
this document was indexed."
Then maybe it should simply be removed from Luke's display as you
mention.
-Original Message-
From: Andrzej Bialecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:13 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Document boost, is it w
Bruno Dery wrote:
Thanks for the help, you're right your example works. However looking in
Luke I also see only ones (1 1 1) as the document boost.
Then perhaps this value should be removed from the Luke's display ...
because it will always read 1, and it's a correct value (see below).
I
m: John Griffin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:40 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Document boost, is it working?
Bruno Dery wrote:
> Hi all the following is using Lucene 2.2.0.
>
> I've been trying to alter the scoring of my search resul
Bruno Dery wrote:
Hi all the following is using Lucene 2.2.0.
I've been trying to alter the scoring of my search results to boost by
date. My idea was to boost documents while indexing using the date but
it doesn't work. So I put together this little sample piece of code to
investigate furthe
Bruno Dery wrote:
Hi all the following is using Lucene 2.2.0.
I've been trying to alter the scoring of my search results to boost by
date. My idea was to boost documents while indexing using the date but
it doesn't work. So I put together this little sample piece of code to
investigate furthe
I hate to ask this (actually, I don't hate it, but...) "what behavior
of the scoring are you actually finding doesn't fit your needs?".
The reason I ask is that I've been asked to change the scoring,
that is, set boosts, based on some vague notion of "how
things should work" that is often just th
Oo I like the BAR_significant field idea. It seems that you'd
have to have one of those for every different level of boosting in your
document. But that is significantly easier than reforming a query for
30-odd fields.
The next quersion would be should you omit the boosted field word
The full post Erick alluded too may be helpful...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200609.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
in general, if your goal is that words in the "metadata" of a document
should be worth more then words in the "body" then you should have two
fields: "metada
I am also releatively new to lucene and was wondering about this. The
way it seems to work, is that if you boost a field then you have to
actually specify that field in your query to benefit from that field
boost. Otherwise you'll search the default field and the boost will be
ignored. I hac
I am setting the boost at index time.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Document-Boost-tf3609748.html#a10088201
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscrib
Were you setting the boosts at index or search time? From an old
e-mail from Chris H.
"index time field boosts are a way to express things like
"this documents title is worth twice as much as the title of
most documents" query time boosts are a way to express
"I care about matches on this clause
20 matches
Mail list logo
