You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@lucene.apache.org by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com> on 2010/06/01 07:20:53 UTC
Re: Should I avoid MultiFieldQueryParser?
What you lose by aggregating all real fields into 1 field is the ability to give fields different scoring weights.
Is a match in the post title equally important as a match in the body or in one of the comments?
If yes, then aggregate.
Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bob Eastbrook <ba...@gmail.com>
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 12:49:32 AM
> Subject: Should I avoid MultiFieldQueryParser?
>
> Imagine a blog that needs to be searched. I first thought I'd
> index
posts and comments using these
> fields:
BlogPostTitle
BlogPostContent
BlogComment
There
> could be any number of BlogComments.
I have this working fine and use
> MultiFieldQueryParser to generate a
query. It seems to work. A
> search for "picnic" matches that term in
post titles, post contents, and
> comments.
However, "Lucene in Action" (2nd edition MEAP proof, chapter 5
> section
4) seems to advocate against using MultiFieldQueryParser and
> instead
suggests using a single synthetic field to hold all searchable
> text.
Perhaps this field would be called "contents" or "keywords".
Is
> this accepted to be a best practice? Should I dump a
BlogPostTitle,
> BlogPostContent, and its BlogComments into a single
field?
Bob