LUCENE-933 / SOLR-261

[Jake Mannix <ja...@gmail.com>]

Hey folks,
  I was wondering what the status of LUCENE-933 (stop words can cause the
queryparser to end up with no results, due to an e.g. +(the) clause in the
resultant BooleanQuery).  According to the tracking bug, it's resolved, and
there's a patch, but where has that patch been applied?  I tried running
solr-trunk (which links to lucene-core-2.3.1), but the same issue occurs.
I'd ask over on the solr-user list, but since SOLR-261 is marked as "blocked
by LUCENE-933", I think here might be the right place to go first.
  Any ideas?  Hoss, Doron?

   -jake

Re: LUCENE-933 / SOLR-261

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: Ah, thanks.  So since solr-1.2.0 is using
: lucene-*-2007-05-20_00_04-53.jarin its distribution,
: is this why SOLR-261 is still open?

SOLR-261 was left open because it hadn't been verified yet -- I just did 
that and resolved the issue against the trunk.

: I thought that maybe it would be a simple drop in replacement, but when I
: tossed in
: lucene-*-2.3.1.jar to solr, it didn't fix the problem, so maybe something in
: solr needs to
: change to take advantage of your patch...

Actualy, i just tried that and worked fine for me ... make sure the older 
lucene jars are removed from the lib dir before you add the new ones, then 
rebuild the war and it should work.

If you are still having problems please start a thread on solr-user 
describing your schema fieldtypes, request handler configs, what query 
URL isn't working the way you expect, and whatthe debugQuery=true output 
looks like.


-Hoss


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org

Re: LUCENE-933 / SOLR-261

[Jake Mannix <ja...@gmail.com>]

Ah, thanks.  So since solr-1.2.0 is using
lucene-*-2007-05-20_00_04-53.jarin its distribution,
is this why SOLR-261 is still open?

I thought that maybe it would be a simple drop in replacement, but when I
tossed in
lucene-*-2.3.1.jar to solr, it didn't fix the problem, so maybe something in
solr needs to
change to take advantage of your patch...

  -jake

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Doron Cohen <cd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi Jake, yes it was commited in Lucene - this is visible in the JIRA issue
> when if you switch to the "Subversion Commits" tab. where you can also
> see the actual diffs that took place.
>
> Best,
> Doron
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jake Mannix <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >  I was wondering what the status of LUCENE-933 (stop words can cause the
> > queryparser to end up with no results, due to an e.g. +(the) clause in
> the
> > resultant BooleanQuery).  According to the tracking bug, it's resolved,
> > and
> > there's a patch, but where has that patch been applied?  I tried running
> > solr-trunk (which links to lucene-core-2.3.1), but the same issue
> occurs.
> > I'd ask over on the solr-user list, but since SOLR-261 is marked as
> > "blocked
> > by LUCENE-933", I think here might be the right place to go first.
> >  Any ideas?  Hoss, Doron?
> >
> >   -jake
> >
>

Re: LUCENE-933 / SOLR-261

[Doron Cohen <cd...@gmail.com>]

hi Jake, yes it was commited in Lucene - this is visible in the JIRA issue
when if you switch to the "Subversion Commits" tab. where you can also
see the actual diffs that took place.

Best,
Doron

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jake Mannix <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>  I was wondering what the status of LUCENE-933 (stop words can cause the
> queryparser to end up with no results, due to an e.g. +(the) clause in the
> resultant BooleanQuery).  According to the tracking bug, it's resolved,
> and
> there's a patch, but where has that patch been applied?  I tried running
> solr-trunk (which links to lucene-core-2.3.1), but the same issue occurs.
> I'd ask over on the solr-user list, but since SOLR-261 is marked as
> "blocked
> by LUCENE-933", I think here might be the right place to go first.
>  Any ideas?  Hoss, Doron?
>
>   -jake
>