lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Goetz <>
Subject Re: Status of proximity in query language
Date Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:39:58 GMT
> Thanks for the feedback on why the NEAR operator was not yet incorporated. I
> didn't understand all the issues for not using the NEAR operator. For my
> purposes, I am fine with these limitations and describe them in the search
> documentation.

Right, but we have to be extra careful with the syntax for the query
parser, as it is exposed to users who don't even know what Lucene is,
let alone having read the docs.  We're designing for typical users here,
not programmers.  

> However, as a potential solution, what do people think about a multi-level
> slop functionality? That is having the slop really be an array of distances
> between terms.
> So "foo bar" NEAR3 "unga bunga" would be translated into
> Foo within 1 of bar within 3 of unga within 1 of bunga.
> This would become a single phrase query, but the "slop" would be variable
> between each word.

That's OK when everthing is a term.  What about 
  Foo* NEAR Bar

We'd need to elevate the concept of 'slop' up the query hierarchy so you
could apply slop to arbitrary queries.  Doug, is that practical?  

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message