It will be nice if we can have dissum in addition to dismax. ;-) On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:26 AM, lee carroll <[email protected]>wrote:
> see > > > http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/api/org/apache/lucene/search/Similarity.html > > > > On 27 September 2011 16:04, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought that a similarity class will only affect the scoring of a > single > > field.. not across multiple fields? Can anyone else chime in with some > > input? Thanks. > > > > On 9/26/11 9:02 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >> Eh, I don't have Lucene/Solr source code handy, but I *think* for that > >> you'd need to write custom Lucene similarity. > >> > >> Otis > >> ---- > >> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch > >> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > >> > >> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Mark<[email protected]> > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 8:12 PM > >>> Subject: Searching multiple fields > >>> > >>> I have a use case where I would like to search across two fields but I > do > >>> not want to weight a document that has a match in both fields higher > than a > >>> document that has a match in only 1 field. > >>> > >>> For example. > >>> > >>> Document 1 > >>> - Field A: "Foo Bar" > >>> - Field B: "Foo Baz" > >>> > >>> Document 2 > >>> - Field A: "Foo Blarg" > >>> - Field B: "Something else" > >>> > >>> Now when I search for "Foo" I would like document 1 and 2 to be > similarly > >>> scored however document 1 will be scored much higher in this use case > >>> because it matches in both fields. I could create a third field and use > >>> copyField directive to search across that but I was wondering if there > is an > >>> alternative way. It would be nice if we could search across some sort > of > >>> "virtual field" that will use both underlying fields but not actually > >>> increase the size of the index. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
