[sword-devel] indexed search discrepancy (and sword 1.6.0+dfsg-2)

Matthew Talbert ransom1982 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 29 18:25:40 MST 2009

> IANASD (I am not a SWORD developer!), but, it is usually easier on the
> person checking and commiting changes from patches if the solution to
> issue, or each additional enhancement, is provided as a separate
> independent patch.  That way, if there are any doubts or concerns about
> one part of the set of patches, the "good stuff" can still be easily
> applied, leaving the rest for further study or fixup.

Yes, the idea was more to just show what changes might be needed and
get some feedback. It wasn't intended to be a patch (or patches) to
apply directly to trunk.

>> Issue 2: search causes segfault when searching for stop words
>>      Resolution: set analyzer stop words to NULL for both index
>> creation and search. Possibly this would only have to be set for
>> search, and left on to lower the index size.
> The "possibly" worries me a bit :)  Do we need to test with and without
> the stopwords at index creation time, and see how much index size is
> affected?  Have you already done any testing along those lines?

I really don't think that these words would add very much to the size
of the module. But I didn't think of leaving it off the index creation
until I was writing the email, so I haven't tested yet :) It would be
worth trying out to see if it made a difference in size.

>> In addition, this patch adds fields for footnotes, morphology, and
>> headers. I *really* would like to see this added to the default
>> indexing. ...
>> ... nor was I entirely comfortable with the code I had written, ...
> Sounds like a "needs further study" idea, to me?

Like I said, I wasn't really aiming for a clean patch, just wanted
some feedback before doing any more work on it.

> I'm about to create a new SWORD 1.6.0+dfsg-2 package with USBINARY
> defined (so we can handle encrypted modules -- quite a regression to
> break those, and almost certainly my fault -- oops!).  I'll look at
> adding in your fixes for Issues 1 and 3, and the search-time part of
> your fix for issue 2, and see what I think about the result... I'm not
> going to even look at the "adds fields" part, which is an enhancement
> ratehr than a straight bug fix, until we get some feedback from the real
> SWORD developers on that :)

Sounds good.


More information about the sword-devel mailing list