lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arturas Mazeika <maze...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: querying vs. highlighting: complete freedom?
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:50:59 GMT
Hi David,

Thanks a lot for the reply and the infos.

I suspected that the minimum on the indexing/storage side was that hl.fl
need to be "stored". I understand that my expression "minimal requirements"
are totally loose/unclear, I wasn't sure how to formulate that as (i) I am
not yet sure how to express myself clearly using the language of the forum
and (ii) I was not sure what impact it has if other component is selected
(like FastVector Highlighter). Deep inside I had a feeling that some solr
configurations would allow highlighting even without the "stored" property
set.

It came to my mind that the document nicely describes how to setup the
parameter hl.method (unified, original, fastVector). Similarly, there's the
hl.qparser parameter, but the documentation of that parameter is not as
rich (the documentation says, that the default value is lucene). I am
wondering are there other alternatives available? In case you are referring
to other components, can you add a reference to those?

With respect to your question, why I'd like to use the analysis-chain for
highlighting. That is a very good question: our end users cannot yet
distinguish between highlighting capability of solr/information retrieval
and search of the occurrences of the query terms in the documents. It is a
rather difficult situation I am in. It is cool that there's a JIRA or two
on the the load-balancing side.

Thanks!
Arturas

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:29 PM, David Smiley <david.w.smiley@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for your review!
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:56 AM Arturas Mazeika <mazeika@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > What I missed at the beginning of the documentation is the minimal set of
> > requirements that is reacquired to have highlighting sensible: somehow I
> > have a feeling that one needs some of the information stored in schema in
> > some form. This of course is mentioned later on in the corresponding
> > section, but I'd write this explicitly.
> >
>
> Explicitly say what up front?  "Requirements" are somewhat loose/minimal.
> We ought to say clearly say that hl.fl fields need to be "stored".
>
> ...
>
> > Is there a way to "load-balance" analyze-query-chain for the purpose of
> > highlighting matches? In the url below, I need to specify a specific
> core.
>
> ...
>
> I doubt it.  You'll have to do this yourself.  Why do you want to use this
> for highlighting?  Is it to get the offsets returned to you?  There's a
> JIRA or two for that already; someone ought to make that happen.
> --
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message