You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Marc Bechler <m....@computer.org> on 2007/09/19 22:12:03 UTC

Exact phrase highlighting

Hi out of there,

I just walked through the mailing list archive, but I did not find an 
appropriate answer for phrase highlighting.

I do not have any highlighting section (and no dismax handler 
definition) in solrconfig.xml. This way (AFAIK :-)), the standard lucene 
query syntax should be supported in it's full functionality. But, in 
this case double quoting the search expressions does not have any effect 
on highlighting, i.e.

Assume we have the following text (of field type text)
It is hard work to do the hard complex work

A query for
"hard work"
(with the double quotes) results the highlighted section
It is <em>hard</em> <em>work</em> to do the <em>hard</em> complex 
<em>work</em>

Although I would guess that the correct answer should be
  It is <em>hard work</em> to do the hard complex work

Does anyone of the SOLR experts have a good answer for me? (I guess that 
I still did not understand the functional relationship between 
highlighting, query specification and index specification...)

Thanks for your help

  marc

Re: Exact phrase highlighting

Posted by okayndc <bo...@gmail.com>.
has this bug been fixed?  i'm using solr 3.1 and it still seems to be an
issue.  if i do a search for "bird house" i still get <em>bird</em>
<em>house</em> returned instead of <em>bird house</em>, which is the desired
result.

--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-phrase-highlighting-tp480339p3113824.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Exact phrase highlighting

Posted by Mike Klaas <mi...@gmail.com>.
On 19-Sep-07, at 2:39 PM, Marc Bechler wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> thanks for the quick response.
>
> > It would make a great project to get one's hands dirty  
> contributing, though :)
>
> ... sounds like giving a broad hint ;-) Sounds challenging...

I'm not sure about that--it is supposed to be a drop-in replacement  
for Highlighter.  I expect most of the work will consist of figuring  
the right of way of packaging it in a jar for solr inclusion.

-Mike

Re: Exact phrase highlighting

Posted by Marc Bechler <m....@computer.org>.
Hi Mike,

thanks for the quick response.

 > It would make a great project to get one's hands dirty contributing, 
though :)

... sounds like giving a broad hint ;-) Sounds challenging...

Regards from Germany

  marc



Re: Exact phrase highlighting

Posted by Mike Klaas <mi...@gmail.com>.
On 19-Sep-07, at 1:12 PM, Marc Bechler wrote:

> Hi out of there,
>
> I just walked through the mailing list archive, but I did not find  
> an appropriate answer for phrase highlighting.
>
> I do not have any highlighting section (and no dismax handler  
> definition) in solrconfig.xml. This way (AFAIK :-)), the standard  
> lucene query syntax should be supported in it's full functionality.  
> But, in this case double quoting the search expressions does not  
> have any effect on highlighting, i.e.
>
> Assume we have the following text (of field type text)
> It is hard work to do the hard complex work
>
> A query for
> "hard work"
> (with the double quotes) results the highlighted section
> It is <em>hard</em> <em>work</em> to do the <em>hard</em> complex  
> <em>work</em>
>
> Although I would guess that the correct answer should be
>  It is <em>hard work</em> to do the hard complex work
>
> Does anyone of the SOLR experts have a good answer for me? (I guess  
> that I still did not understand the functional relationship between  
> highlighting, query specification and index specification...)

It currently is not supported by Solr.  There is work in lucene that  
supports this (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-794? 
page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment- 
tabpanel#action_12526803), but it is currently not integrated.

It would make a great project to get one's hands dirty contributing,  
though :)

-Mike