Thanks for raising a ticket. Here are just two considerations: > we could change the synonym rule to "foo bar,baz,foo,bar" but this would mean that a query for "foo" could now match a document containing only "bar", which is not the intent of the original rule. Ok. The later issue can be probably fixed by directing synonyms foo bar=>baz,foo,bar Right, It seems like a weird band aid.
I stepped through lucene code, MUST occur for synonyms is defined https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/7baa01b3c2f93e6b172e986aac8ef577a87ebceb/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/QueryBuilder.java#L534 Presumably, original terms could go with defaultOperator, and synonym replacement keep MUST. On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 12:17 AM Rudi Seitz <r...@rudiseitz.com> wrote: > Thanks Mikhail and Michael. > Based on your feedback, I created a ticket: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-16652 > In the ticket, I mentioned why updating the synonym rule or setting > sow=true causes other problems in this case, unfortunately. I haven't yet > looked through code to see where the behavior could be changed. > Rudi > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:26 AM Michael Gibney <mich...@michaelgibney.net > > > wrote: > > > Rudi, > > > > I agree, this does not seem like how it should behave. Probably > > something that could be fixed in edismax, not something lower-level > > (Lucene)? > > > > Michael > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 9:38 AM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, Rudi. > > > Well, it doesn't seem perfect. Probably it's can be fixed > > > via > > > foo bar,zzz,foo,bar > > > And in some sort of sense this behavior is reasonable. > > > Also you can experiment with sow and pf params (the later param is > > > described in dismax page only). > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:19 PM Rudi Seitz <r...@rudiseitz.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Is this known behavior or is it worth a JIRA ticket? > > > > > > > > Searching against a text_general field in Solr 9.1, if my edismax > > query is > > > > "foo bar" I should be able to get matches for "foo" without "bar" and > > vice > > > > versa. However, if there happens to be a synonym rule applied at > query > > > > time, like "foo bar,zzz" I can no longer get single-term matches > > against > > > > "foo" or "bar." Both terms are now required, but can occur in either > > order. > > > > If we change the text_general analysis chain to apply synonyms at > index > > > > time instead of query time, this behavior goes away and single-term > > matches > > > > are again possible. > > > > > > > > To reproduce, use the _default configset with "foo bar,zzz" added to > > > > synonyms.txt. Index these four docs: > > > > > > > > {"id":"1", "title_txt":"foo"} > > > > {"id":"2", "title_txt":"bar"} > > > > {"id":"3", "title_txt":"foo bar"} > > > > {"id":"4", "title_txt":"bar foo"} > > > > > > > > Issue a query for "foo bar" (i.e. > > > > defType=edismax&q.op=OR&qf=title_txt&q=foo bar) > > > > Result: Only docs 3 and 4 come back > > > > > > > > Issue a query for "bar foo" > > > > Result: All four docs come back; the synonym rule is not invoked > > > > > > > > Looking at the explain output for "foo bar" we see: > > > > > > > > +((title_txt:zzz (+title_txt:foo +title_txt:bar))) > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the explain output for "bar foo" we see: > > > > > > > > +((title_txt:bar) (title_txt:foo)) > > > > > > > > So, the observed behavior makes sense according to the low-level > query > > > > structure. But -- is this how it's "supposed" to work? > > > > > > > > Why not expand the "foo bar" query like this instead? > > > > > > > > +((title_txt:zzz (title_txt:foo title_txt:bar))) > > > > > > > > Rudi > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours > > > Mikhail Khludnev > > > https://t.me/MUST_SEARCH > > > A caveat: Cyrillic! > > > -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev https://t.me/MUST_SEARCH A caveat: Cyrillic!
