Do I need to include special characters in conf charset_table if I "manually" escape them in my code (python)? I haven't included and it's working fine :-/
They do slightly different things. charset_table, influences how the 'input text' itself is tokenized and indexed as words. (as well as how the query itself is tokenized)
So if you want these 'special chars' to taken as seperators between words, then leave them out of charset table, and escape them in the query[1]. (This seems to be what you have)
But if you want these chars to be taken as word charactors - included as part of words, then they should be included in charset_table and still escaped[1]
[1] (well only needs escaping if they can be mistaken as search query syntax).
Related
My searches consistently match 'A-B' to 'A B'. I do not have a charset_table in the config, nor a ignore_chars. I have a small stopwords but for 'the in and of'.
Where is Sphinx being told to ignore -? I am trying to make it recognize it so I can force behavior with regexp?
- is not in the default cherset_table - the documentation says what the default is, but it basically just includes A-Z, a-z, 0-9 and _.
rexexp_filter are run before charset_table processing, so can be used to change behaviour of - regardless of the charset_table.
It looks like SOLR is considering what should be valid Unicode characters as invalid, and dropping them.
I "proved" this by turning on query debug to see what the parser was doing with my query. Here's an example:
Query = 'ァ☀' (\u30a1\u2600)
Here's what SOLR did with it:
'debug':{
'rawquerystring':u'\u30a1\u2600',
'querystring':u'\u30a1\u2600',
'parsedquery':u'(+DisjunctionMaxQuery((text:\u30a1)))/no_coord',
'parsedquery_toString':u'+(text:\u30a1)',
As you can see, was OK with 'ァ', but it ATE the "Black Sun" character.
I haven't tried ALL of the Block, but I've confirmed it also doesn't like ⛿ (\u26ff) and ♖ (\u2656).
I'm using SOLR with Jetty, so the various TomCat issues WRT character encoding shouldn't apply.
This very likely has more to do with the Analyzer. I don't see anything specifying the treatment of those sorts of characters exactly, but they are probably being treated very much as punctuation by the StandardAnalyzer (or whatever Analyzer you may be using), and so will not be present in the final query. StandardAnalyzer implements the rules set forward in UAX-29, Unicode Text Segmentation, in order to separate input into tokens.
I have a document which has been sloppily authored. It's a dictionary that contains cyrillic characters. Most of the dictionary is manageable, but I'm stuck with one thing I need help with. Words have accented letters in them and they're mostly formatted properly as a letter with a unicode accent (thus forming a single letter). However there are some very peculiar letters that look similar for example to: a;´ (where "a" is any arbitrary cyrillic letter). You'd expect á in its place. However it wouldn't be a problem per se if only this thing could be exported to, say HTML and manipulated in a text editor. The problem is that Word treats this "thing" as a single character/entity and
when exporting it is COMPLETELY omitted
when copied it can only be pasted into Notepad (which translates it into three separate characters), when being pasted into WordPad it just won't appear at all.
when a search is run in Word it won't find the letter, neither the actual character nor the exactly copied/pasted combination.
the letter will disappear when the document is opened in any other software, such as Libre Office
At this point I'm trying to:
understand what this combination is exactly
run a search/replace operation to find and weed out all of those errors
Here's a sample Word file.
Here's a screenshot of the word/letter in question:
which when typed correctly should appear like "скре́пка".
The 'character' appears to be a Word field of type 'eq' (equation). Here is the field with toggled field codes:
If it is a large document you could try to create a VBA routine that removes the fields and replaces them with corresponding characters.
Assuming that #Anonimista’s analysis is correct, as I think it is, you could fix the file by running some search and replace operations in Word, replacing e.g. ^19eq \o(е;´)^21 by е́ (the latter is Cyrillic letter е followed by combining acute accent U+0301). This is dull because you would need to do this for each vowel separately (and for uppercase vowels too). But I cannot find a way to use wildcards in this context; the codes ^19 and ^21 for start and end of field work only when wildcards are not enabled.
I've read all the posts about dashes and tried pretty much everything mentioned in them, yet cannot figure out a strange problem I'm having.
For example, I have an author name like this:
Arturo Pérez-Reverte
A search for 'pérez-reverte' will not turn up anything, nor will 'pérez-reverte' so escaping the dash is not the issue.
But a search for 'spider-man' will return hits, proving that the dash seems to be working.
However, a search for 'perez reverte' also finds a hit because it searches each word separately and finds the 'reverte' in 'perez-reverte' (but doesn't seem to find the 'perez').
A search for either 'pérez' or 'perez' finds the same number of documents, suggesting that the accent is not an issue (I do have a charset_table which accounts for accented characters).
So I'm very confused as to what's happening here. It if it isn't the accent and it isn't the dash, what could it be?
I don't have any ignore_chars set, I'm using UTF-8 and have a charset_table to treat accented characters as regular characters.
The only difference between these two terms is that one of them is a title (spider-man) and the other an author, but they are both part of the same Sphinx index declaration, so I don't see that as an issue in any way.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
After much fighting with it, I found out that even though my database is all UTF-8 with the proper collation I needed to add this in sphinx.conf for everything to work properly:
sql_query_pre = SET NAMES utf8
sql_query_pre = SET CHARACTER SET utf8
After doing that, and having the proper charset_table, everything seems to be working fine.
Hope this helps someone else.
Where can I find a Unicode table showing only the simplified Chinese characters?
I have searched everywhere but cannot find anything.
UPDATE :
I have found that there is another encoding called GB 2312 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_2312
- which contains only simplified characters.
Surely I can use this to get what I need?
I have also found this file which maps GB2312 to Unicode -
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/GUS/Unicode-UTF8simple-1.06/gb2312.txt
- but I'm not sure if it's accurate or not.
If that table isn't correct maybe someone could point me to one that is, or maybe just a table of the GB2312 characters and some way to convert them?
UPDATE 2 :
This site also provides a GB/Unicode table and even a Java program to generate a file
with all the GB characters as well as the Unicode equivalents :
http://www.herongyang.com/gb2312/
The Unihan database contains this information in the file Unihan_Variants.txt. For example, a pair of traditional/simplified characters are:
U+673A kTraditionalVariant U+6A5F
U+6A5F kSimplifiedVariant U+673A
In the above case, U+6A5F is 機, the traditional form of 机 (U+673A).
Another approach is to use the CC-CEDICT project, which publishes a dictionary of Chinese characters and compounds (both traditional and simplified). Each entry looks something like:
宕機 宕机 [dang4 ji1] /to crash (of a computer)/Taiwanese term for 當機|当机[dang4 ji1]/
The first column is traditional characters, and the second column is simplified.
To get all the simplified characters, read this text file and make a list of every character that appears in the second column. Note that some characters may not appear by themselves (only in compounds), so it is not sufficient to look at single-character entries.
The OP doesn't indicate which language they're using, but if you're using Ruby, I've written a small library that can distinguish between simplified and traditional Chinese (plus Korean and Japanese as a bonus). As suggested in Greg's answer, it relies on a distilled version of Unihan_Variants.txt to figure out which chars are exclusively simplified and which are exclusively traditional.
https://github.com/jpatokal/script_detector
Sample:
p string
=> "我的氣墊船充滿了鱔魚."
> string.chinese?
=> true
> string.traditional_chinese?
=> true
> string.simplified_chinese?
=> false
But as the Unicode FAQ duly warns, this requires sizable fragments of text to work reliably, and will give misleading results for short strings. Consider the Japanese for Tokyo:
p string
=> "東京"
> string.chinese?
=> true
> string.traditional_chinese?
=> true
> string.japanese?
=> false
Since both characters happen to also be valid traditional Chinese, and there are no exclusively Japanese characters, it's not recognized correctly.
I'm not sure if that's easily done. The Han ideographs are unified in Unicode, so it's not immediately obvious how to do it. But the Unihan database (http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html) might have the data you need.
Here is a regex of all simplified Chinese characters I made. For some reason Stackoverflow is complaining, so it's linked in a pastebin below.
https://pastebin.com/xw4p7RVJ
You'll notice that this list features ranges rather than each individual character, but also that these are utf-8 characters, not escaped representations. It's served me well in one iteration or another since around 2010. Hopefully everyone else can make some use of it now.
If you don't want the simplified chars (I can't imagine why, it's not come up once in 9 years), iterate over all the chars from ['一-龥'] and try to build a new list. Or run two regex's, one to check it is Chinese, but is not simplified Chinese
According to wikipedia simplified Chinese v. traditional, kanji, or other formats is left up to the font rendering in many cases. So while you could have a selection of simplified Chinese codepoints, this list would not be at all complete since many characters are no longer distinct.
I don't believe that there's a table with only simplified code points. I think they're all lumped together in the CJK range of 0x4E00 through 0x9FFF