Re: solr relatedness weirdness on json facet function

2022-04-07 Thread Dan Rosher
Thanks Michael, that may well be the issue! I need to reorder the chain and thanks for the suggestion on the WordDelimiterGraphFilter which I'll look into as well. On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 17:14, Michael Gibney wrote: > I think the behavior you're seeing is a consequence of the fact that you're > a

Re: solr relatedness weirdness on json facet function

2022-04-06 Thread Michael Gibney
I think the behavior you're seeing is a consequence of the fact that you're applying index-time stopword filtering *before* the tokens are further manipulated by WordDelimiterGraphFilter. E.g.: "the token-is-retained" => "the" "token-is" "retained" => "the" "token" "is" "retained" In the case abo

Re: solr relatedness weirdness on json facet function

2022-04-06 Thread Dan Rosher
Hi Michael, Here are the field and fieldType with a result snippet. I've checked the stopword list, and words like "a" or "be" are in it. I've also used the UI analysis to check that they indeed should be removed when indexed and queried. Many thanks, Dan *example results:* "facets": {

Re: solr relatedness weirdness on json facet function

2022-04-05 Thread Michael Gibney
Both `qf` and `relatedness` should be orthogonal to your question, iiuc. Understanding that your question is mainly about which terms are included (i.e. included at all -- nevermind ranking), then the only thing that should determine that is the field and fieldType config for the terms facet "field