Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Morphology only for certain fields #7
Would be nice to be able to only apply
Know it would then mean different tokens exist in index for different fields (so a if a query keywoord is morphed, wont match the unmorphed filed) - but this could be mitigated by using
Basically to avoid having to do
want to clarify - in case of new option that disables
and this query will match only 2nd doc
to match all docs you should write query like
Could it be source of additional errors?
Not quite sure how this feature easy this example
Yes, as mentioned would probably use it with expand_keywords=1 so could match all columns.
Would work instead of having to do
Where (only) on the
Dont think so, to at least they wouldn't be unknown. using expand_words (or doing manually with 'runs | =runs' wouldnt add any false positives). At worse just changing the ranking positions.
also not clear now in case of morphology enabled each
and these terms got stored into dictionay.
However in case we just skip morth part for source term
Seems you request is at indexing time to skip morthed tokens but store only exact term tokens. Am I right?
Here is variants collected so far on how to set new option at index section
like these examples, however only one option will be used
Want to know you opinion on option naming.
Wanted also notice that feature implemented works as
ie for field with disabled morphology and content
that is why these queries match nothing
but these queries match document
or query with
I was kinda thinking the very simple
seems simplest, no grouping.
But with rule if there are no + fields listed, then there is automatic 'all' listed at start. So
would only enable it for those two specific fields (no others). Ading + and ! together at once, the ! fields would have no effect.
Yes, think that is what was originally thinking.
(It may not matter, if they 'unmorphed' - non exact - token was written to index, it would never match (keyword in query would be morphed) - but does seem best to just omit it completely )
If dont want to rewrite query, then
@barryhunter, how you think about extending existing
Of course for now we can't assign different morphology settings this way (to different fields), but I mean that case of using existing 'morphology' clause in config can be this easy extended when necessary (second example in the case is exactly to switch off morphology on certain fields)
Only just seen this. Frankly not too bothered by the exact syntax. Even if cumbersome the config isnt updated very often.
But on the idea if being able to specify different morphology for different fields, not sure that would work. Because the morphology has to be applied to the query too, if different morphology, then keywords would match different fields incorrectly.
... but otherwise yes would be happy extending
... ie set all, then override for 'some' fields. (so morth not specified dields affects everything, rather than just 'not specified' ones.
That option not got stored into index and has no effect at RT index. These will be addressed soon.
... did only test a
The index still has morphology on other fields (including the original
(yes, coopts the new expand_keywords OPTION, which makes it much easier to enable, without changing the whole index)