Re: Case insensitive search and original string
Hi Ahmet, Yes, for display purpose. Okay, so I don't have to copy fields then. Thank you very much. R On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:57 AM, AHMET ARSLAN wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 8/27/09, Rihaed Tan wrote: > > > From: Rihaed Tan > > Subject: Case insensitive search and original string > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 10:10 PM > > Hi, > > Totally a Solr newbie here. The docs and list have been > > helpful but I have a > > question on lowercase / case insensitive search. Do you > > really need to have > > another field (copied or not) to retain the original casing > > of a field? > > > > So let's say I have a field with a type that is lowercased > > during index and > > query time, where can I pull out the original string > > (non-lowercased) from > > the response? Should copyfield be used? > > > > Thanks, > > R > > > > Are you asking for displaying purpose? If yes by default Solr gives you > original string of a field in the response. Stemming, lowercasing, etc do > not effect this behaviour. You can allways display original documents to the > users. > > If you want to capture original words -that matched the query terms- from > original documents, then use highlighting. ( &hl=true&hl.fragsize=0 ) You > will find those words between tags in the response. > > > >
Return 2 fields per facet.. name and id, for example? / facet value search
Sorry for the duplicate post, if ever, can anyone share their experience on holding facet heading/value IDs in Solr? On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Rihaed Tan wrote: > Hi, > > I have a similar requirement to Matthew (from his post 2 years ago). Is > this still the way to go in storing both the ID and name/value for facet > values? I'm planning to use id#name format if this is still the case and > doing a prefix query. I believe this is a common requirement so I'd > appreciate if any of you guys can share what's the best way to do it. > > Also, I'm indexing the facet values for text search as well. Should the > field declaration below suffice the requirement? > > required="true" multiValued="true"/> > > Thanks, > R > > > >> Re: Return 2 fields per facet.. name and id, for example? > > >> Matthew Runo > > Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:15:12 -0700 > > >> Ahh... sneaky. I'll probably do the combined-name#id method. > > >> ++ > > | Matthew Runo > > | Zappos Development > > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > | 702-943-7833 > > ++ > > >> >> On Sep 7, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > >> >>On 9/7/07, Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I've found something which is either already in SOLR, or should be > >(as I can see it being very helpful). I couldn't figure out how to >> do > >it though.. > > >>Lets say I'm trying to print out a page of products, and I want to > >provide a list of brands to filter by. It would be great if in my > >facets I could get this sort of xml... > > >> >>45 > > >>That way, I'd be able to know the brand id of adidas without having > >to run a second query somewhere for each facet to look it up. > > >>If you can get the name from the id in your webapp, then index the id > >to begin with (instead of the name). > >45 > > >> Or, if you need both the name and the id, index them both together, > >separated by a special character that you can strip out on the webapp > >side... > > >>45 > > >>-Yonik > >
Schema for group/child entity setup
Hi Solrers, I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business listings that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having several locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once but also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by state, for example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations within the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically be the same thing and repeat results with the same business name. Any advice? Thanks, R
Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this patch? On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan wrote: > Hi Solrers, > I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search > requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business listings > that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having several > locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once but > also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by state, for > example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. > > Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations within > the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the > locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically be the > same thing and repeat results with the same business name. > > Any advice? > > Thanks, > R >
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field collapsing? What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? R On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness wrote: > The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for single > solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet supported. > Using this page you can group search results based on a specific field. > There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and non-adjacent, the > former collapses only document which happen to be located next to each other > in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the non-adjacent) one > collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of their > position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that > non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently discussion > to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, extra > information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the discussion > on the issue page). > > Uri > > > R. Tan wrote: > >> I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this patch? >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Solrers, >>> I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search >>> requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business >>> listings >>> that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having >>> several >>> locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once but >>> also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by state, >>> for >>> example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. >>> >>> Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations >>> within >>> the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the >>> locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically be >>> the >>> same thing and repeat results with the same business name. >>> >>> Any advice? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> R >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Re: Schema for group/child entity setup
I can't because there are facet values for each location, such as state/city/neighborhood and facilities. Example result is "7 Eleven", 100 locations when no location filters are applied, where there is a filter for state, it should show "7 Eleven, 20 locations. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Aakash Dharmadhikari wrote: > can't you store the locations as part of the parent listing while storing. > This way there would be only one document per parent listing. And all the > locations related information can be multi valued attributes per property > or > any other way depending on the attributes. > > 2009/9/3 R. Tan > > > Hi Solrers, > > I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search > > requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business > listings > > that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having > several > > locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once but > > also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by state, > > for > > example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. > > > > Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations > within > > the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the > > locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically be > > the > > same thing and repeat results with the same business name. > > > > Any advice? > > > > Thanks, > > R > > >
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also part of the results data? What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production environment? I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. Thank you very much. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness wrote: > The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document which can > be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination just works > as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account (ignoring > the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is actually > the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. > > As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All latest > patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also depending on > some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I guess you'll > have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about their stability. > > cheers, > Uri > > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field collapsing? >> What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? >> >> R >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness wrote: >> >> >> >>> The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for single >>> solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet supported. >>> Using this page you can group search results based on a specific field. >>> There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and non-adjacent, >>> the >>> former collapses only document which happen to be located next to each >>> other >>> in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the non-adjacent) >>> one >>> collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of their >>> position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that >>> non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently >>> discussion >>> to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, extra >>> information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the >>> discussion >>> on the issue page). >>> >>> Uri >>> >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this patch? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Solrers, >>>>> I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search >>>>> requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business >>>>> listings >>>>> that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having >>>>> several >>>>> locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once >>>>> but >>>>> also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by >>>>> state, >>>>> for >>>>> example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. >>>>> >>>>> Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations >>>>> within >>>>> the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the >>>>> locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically >>>>> be >>>>> the >>>>> same thing and repeat results with the same business name. >>>>> >>>>> Any advice? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> R >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Re: Return 2 fields per facet.. name and id, for example? / facet value search
Thanks. I guess it will have to be the workaround then. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Rihaed Tan > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have a similar requirement to Matthew (from his post 2 years ago). Is > > this > > still the way to go in storing both the ID and name/value for facet > values? > > I'm planning to use id#name format if this is still the case and doing a > > prefix query. I believe this is a common requirement so I'd appreciate if > > any of you guys can share what's the best way to do it. > > > > Also, I'm indexing the facet values for text search as well. Should the > > field declaration below suffice the requirement? > > > > > required="true" multiValued="true"/> > > > > There have been talks of having a pair field type in Solr but there is no > patch yet. So I guess the way proposed by Yonik is a good solution. > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. >
Re: Schema for group/child entity setup
Hmmm, interesting solution. But, as I've discovered the field collapsing feature recently (although I haven't tested it), can't it solve this requirement? On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > Well you are talking about a very relational behavior, Tan. > You can declare a "locations" and "location_*" field in your schema. While > indexing a document, put all the locations inside the field "locations". > Populate "location_state", "location_city" etc .. with their corresponding > location values. That ways, when no filter is applied, you can facet on the > "locations" field to get all the locations. In all other scenarios when a > filter on field "foo" is applied, faceting on "location_foo" will give you > the desired results. > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:16 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > I can't because there are facet values for each location, such as > > state/city/neighborhood and facilities. Example result is "7 Eleven", 100 > > locations when no location filters are applied, where there is a filter > for > > state, it should show "7 Eleven, 20 locations. > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Aakash Dharmadhikari > >wrote: > > > > > can't you store the locations as part of the parent listing while > > storing. > > > This way there would be only one document per parent listing. And all > the > > > locations related information can be multi valued attributes per > property > > > or > > > any other way depending on the attributes. > > > > > > 2009/9/3 R. Tan > > > > > > > Hi Solrers, > > > > I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search > > > > requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business > > > listings > > > > that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having > > > several > > > > locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once > > but > > > > also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by > > state, > > > > for > > > > example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. > > > > > > > > Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations > > > within > > > > the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for > the > > > > locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically > > be > > > > the > > > > same thing and repeat results with the same business name. > > > > > > > > Any advice? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > R > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
Anybody using it on public site? Would love to see some live examples. On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:50 AM, R. Tan wrote: > Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without > trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also part of > the results data? > What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production environment? > I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. > > Thank you very much. > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness wrote: > >> The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document which can >> be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination just works >> as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account (ignoring >> the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is actually >> the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. >> >> As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All >> latest patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also >> depending on some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I >> guess you'll have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about >> their stability. >> >> cheers, >> Uri >> >> >> R. Tan wrote: >> >>> Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field collapsing? >>> What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? >>> >>> R >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for single >>>> solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet supported. >>>> Using this page you can group search results based on a specific field. >>>> There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and non-adjacent, >>>> the >>>> former collapses only document which happen to be located next to each >>>> other >>>> in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the non-adjacent) >>>> one >>>> collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of their >>>> position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that >>>> non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently >>>> discussion >>>> to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, extra >>>> information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the >>>> discussion >>>> on the issue page). >>>> >>>> Uri >>>> >>>> >>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think this is what I'm looking for. What is the status of this patch? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, R. Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Solrers, >>>>>> I would like to get your opinion on how to best approach a search >>>>>> requirement that I have. The scenario is I have a set of business >>>>>> listings >>>>>> that may be group into one parent business (such as 7-eleven having >>>>>> several >>>>>> locations). On the results page, I only want 7-eleven to show up once >>>>>> but >>>>>> also show how many locations matched the query (facet filtered by >>>>>> state, >>>>>> for >>>>>> example) and maybe a preview of the some of the locations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Searching for the business name is straightforward but the locations >>>>>> within >>>>>> the a result is quite tricky. I can do the opposite, searching for the >>>>>> locations and faceting on business names, but it will still basically >>>>>> be >>>>>> the >>>>>> same thing and repeat results with the same business name. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any advice? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> R >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
Thanks Uri. Your personal suggestion is appreciated and I think I'll follow your advice. We're still early in development and 1.4 would be a good choice. I hope I can get field collapsing to work with my requirements. Do you know any live site using field collapsing already? On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Uri Boness wrote: > There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to > ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a dedicated > request parameter. This work is not committed yet to the latest patch, but > will be very soon. There is of course a drawback to that as well, the > collapsed documents set can be very large (depends on your data of course) > in which case the returned result which includes the fields values can be > rather large, which will impact performance, this is why this feature will > be enabled only if you specify this extra parameter - by default no field > values will be returned. > > AFAIK, the latest patch should work fine with the latest build. Martijn > (which is the main maintainer of this patch) tries to keep it up to date > with the latest builds. But I guess the safest way is to work with the > nightly build of the same date as the latest patch (though I would give it a > try first with the latest build). > > BTW, it's not an official suggestion from the Solr development team, but if > you ask me, if you have to choose now whether to use 1.3 or 1.4-dev, I would > go for the later. 1.4 is supposed to be released in the upcoming week or two > and it bring loads of bug fixes, enhancements and extra functionality. But > again, this is my personal suggestion. > > > cheers, > Uri > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without >> trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also part of >> the results data? >> What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production environment? >> I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness wrote: >> >> >> >>> The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document which >>> can >>> be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination just >>> works >>> as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account >>> (ignoring >>> the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is >>> actually >>> the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. >>> >>> As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All >>> latest >>> patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also depending >>> on >>> some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I guess >>> you'll >>> have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about their >>> stability. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Uri >>> >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks Uri. How does paging and scoring work when using field >>>> collapsing? >>>> What patch works with 1.3? Is it production ready? >>>> >>>> R >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Uri Boness wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The development on this patch is quite active. It works well for single >>>>> solr instance, but distributed search (ie. shards) is not yet >>>>> supported. >>>>> Using this page you can group search results based on a specific field. >>>>> There are two flavors of field collapsing - adjacent and non-adjacent, >>>>> the >>>>> former collapses only document which happen to be located next to each >>>>> other >>>>> in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set. The later (the >>>>> non-adjacent) >>>>> one >>>>> collapses all documents with the same field value (regardless of their >>>>> position in the otherwise-non-collapsed results set). Note, that >>>>> non-adjacent performs better than adjacent one. There's currently >>>>> discussion >>>>> to extend this support so in addition to collapsing the documents, >>>>> extra >>>>> information will be returned for the collapsed documents (see the >>>>> discussion >>>
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. > There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to > ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a dedicated > request parameter. So, right now, you get all field values by default? On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Uri Boness wrote: > You can check out http://www.ilocal.nl. If you search for a bank in > Amsterdam then you'll see that a lot of the results are collapsed. For this > we used an older version of this patch (which works on 1.3) but a lot has > changed since then. We're currently using this patch on another project, but > it's not live yet. > > > Uri > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Thanks Uri. Your personal suggestion is appreciated and I think I'll >> follow >> your advice. We're still early in development and 1.4 would be a good >> choice. I hope I can get field collapsing to work with my requirements. Do >> you know any live site using field collapsing already? >> >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Uri Boness wrote: >> >> >> >>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to >>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>> dedicated >>> request parameter. This work is not committed yet to the latest patch, >>> but >>> will be very soon. There is of course a drawback to that as well, the >>> collapsed documents set can be very large (depends on your data of >>> course) >>> in which case the returned result which includes the fields values can be >>> rather large, which will impact performance, this is why this feature >>> will >>> be enabled only if you specify this extra parameter - by default no field >>> values will be returned. >>> >>> AFAIK, the latest patch should work fine with the latest build. Martijn >>> (which is the main maintainer of this patch) tries to keep it up to date >>> with the latest builds. But I guess the safest way is to work with the >>> nightly build of the same date as the latest patch (though I would give >>> it a >>> try first with the latest build). >>> >>> BTW, it's not an official suggestion from the Solr development team, but >>> if >>> you ask me, if you have to choose now whether to use 1.3 or 1.4-dev, I >>> would >>> go for the later. 1.4 is supposed to be released in the upcoming week or >>> two >>> and it bring loads of bug fixes, enhancements and extra functionality. >>> But >>> again, this is my personal suggestion. >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> Uri >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without >>>> trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also part >>>> of >>>> the results data? >>>> What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production >>>> environment? >>>> I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Uri Boness wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The collapsed documents are represented by one "master" document which >>>>> can >>>>> be part of the normal search result (the doc list), so pagination just >>>>> works >>>>> as expected, meaning taking only the returned documents in account >>>>> (ignoring >>>>> the collapsed ones). As for the scoring, the "master" document is >>>>> actually >>>>> the document with the highest score in the collapsed group. >>>>> >>>>> As for Solr 1.3 compatibility... well... it's very hart to tell. All >>>>> latest >>>>> patch are certainly *not* 1.3 compatible (I think they're also >>>>> depending >>>>> on >>>>> some changes in lucene which are not available for solr 1.3). I guess >>>>> you'll >>>>> have to try some of the old patches, but I'm not sure about their >>>>> stability. >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
Re: Field Collapsing (was Re: Schema for group/child entity setup)
> > The patch which will be committed soon will add this functionality. Where can I follow the progress of this patch? On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Uri Boness wrote: > >> Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. >> > thanks. > > So, right now, you get all field values by default? >> > Right now, no field values are returned for the collapsed documents. The > patch which will be committed soon will add this functionality. > > > R. Tan wrote: > >> Great. Nice site and very similar to my requirements. >> >> >> >>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you to >>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>> dedicated >>> request parameter. >>> >>> >> >> >> So, right now, you get all field values by default? >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Uri Boness wrote: >> >> >> >>> You can check out http://www.ilocal.nl. If you search for a bank in >>> Amsterdam then you'll see that a lot of the results are collapsed. For >>> this >>> we used an older version of this patch (which works on 1.3) but a lot has >>> changed since then. We're currently using this patch on another project, >>> but >>> it's not live yet. >>> >>> >>> Uri >>> >>> R. Tan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks Uri. Your personal suggestion is appreciated and I think I'll >>>> follow >>>> your advice. We're still early in development and 1.4 would be a good >>>> choice. I hope I can get field collapsing to work with my requirements. >>>> Do >>>> you know any live site using field collapsing already? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Uri Boness wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There's work on the patch that is being done now which will enable you >>>>> to >>>>> ask for specific field values of the collapsed documents using a >>>>> dedicated >>>>> request parameter. This work is not committed yet to the latest patch, >>>>> but >>>>> will be very soon. There is of course a drawback to that as well, the >>>>> collapsed documents set can be very large (depends on your data of >>>>> course) >>>>> in which case the returned result which includes the fields values can >>>>> be >>>>> rather large, which will impact performance, this is why this feature >>>>> will >>>>> be enabled only if you specify this extra parameter - by default no >>>>> field >>>>> values will be returned. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, the latest patch should work fine with the latest build. Martijn >>>>> (which is the main maintainer of this patch) tries to keep it up to >>>>> date >>>>> with the latest builds. But I guess the safest way is to work with the >>>>> nightly build of the same date as the latest patch (though I would give >>>>> it a >>>>> try first with the latest build). >>>>> >>>>> BTW, it's not an official suggestion from the Solr development team, >>>>> but >>>>> if >>>>> you ask me, if you have to choose now whether to use 1.3 or 1.4-dev, I >>>>> would >>>>> go for the later. 1.4 is supposed to be released in the upcoming week >>>>> or >>>>> two >>>>> and it bring loads of bug fixes, enhancements and extra functionality. >>>>> But >>>>> again, this is my personal suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Uri >>>>> >>>>> R. Tan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Okay. Thanks for giving an insight on how it works in general. Without >>>>>> trying it myself, are the field values for the collapsed ones also >>>>>> part >>>>>> of >>>>>> the results data? >>>>>> What is the latest build that is safe to use on a production >>>>>> environment? >>>>>> I'd probably go for that and use field collapsing. >>&g
"Only one usage of each socket address" error
Hi guys, I'm getting an exception while in the middle of a batch indexing job. Can anybody help me figure this out? Error: Only one usage of each socket address (protocol/network address/port) is normally permitted 127.0.0.1:8080 Solr is 1.4 on Tomcat. Big thanks. Rihaed
TermsComponent or auto-suggest with filter
Hello, What's the best way to get auto-suggested terms/keywords that is filtered by one or more fields? TermsComponent should have been the solution but filters are not supported. Thanks, Rihaed
Re: TermsComponent or auto-suggest with filter
Nice. In comparison, how do you do it with faceting? > "Two other approaches are to use either the TermsComponent (new in Solr > 1.4) or faceting." On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jay Hill wrote: > Have a look at a blog I posted on how to use EdgeNGrams to build an > auto-suggest tool: > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/09/08/auto-suggest-from-popular-queries-using-edgengrams/ > > You could easily add filter queries to this approach. Ffor example, the > query used in the blog could add filter queries like this: > > http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=user_query: > ”i”&wt=json&fl=user_query&indent=on&echoParams=none&rows=10&sort=count > desc&fq=yourField:yourQuery&fq=anotherField:anotherQuery > > -Jay > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:40 AM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Hello, > > What's the best way to get auto-suggested terms/keywords that is filtered > > by > > one or more fields? TermsComponent should have been the solution but > > filters > > are not supported. > > > > Thanks, > > Rihaed > > >
SpellCheck with filter/conditions
Sorry, newbie here, figured it out. How do you get spelling suggestions on a specific resultset, filtered by a certain facet for example? On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM, R. Tan wrote: > Nice. In comparison, how do you do it with faceting? > >> "Two other approaches are to use either the TermsComponent (new in Solr >> 1.4) or faceting." > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jay Hill wrote: > >> Have a look at a blog I posted on how to use EdgeNGrams to build an >> auto-suggest tool: >> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/09/08/auto-suggest-from-popular-queries-using-edgengrams/ >> >> You could easily add filter queries to this approach. Ffor example, the >> query used in the blog could add filter queries like this: >> >> http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=user_query: >> ”i”&wt=json&fl=user_query&indent=on&echoParams=none&rows=10&sort=count >> desc&fq=yourField:yourQuery&fq=anotherField:anotherQuery >> >> -Jay >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:40 AM, R. Tan wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > What's the best way to get auto-suggested terms/keywords that is >> filtered >> > by >> > one or more fields? TermsComponent should have been the solution but >> > filters >> > are not supported. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Rihaed >> > >> > >
Re: TermsComponent or auto-suggest with filter
Thanks Jay. What's a good way of extracting the original text from here? On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Jay Hill wrote: > Something like this, building on each character typed: > > &facet=on&facet.field=tc_query&facet.prefix=be&facet.mincount=1 > > -Jay > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:43 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Nice. In comparison, how do you do it with faceting? > > > > > "Two other approaches are to use either the TermsComponent (new in Solr > > > 1.4) or faceting." > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jay Hill wrote: > > > > > Have a look at a blog I posted on how to use EdgeNGrams to build an > > > auto-suggest tool: > > > > > > > > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/09/08/auto-suggest-from-popular-queries-using-edgengrams/ > > > > > > You could easily add filter queries to this approach. Ffor example, the > > > query used in the blog could add filter queries like this: > > > > > > http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=user_query: > > > ”i”&wt=json&fl=user_query&indent=on&echoParams=none&rows=10&sort=count > > > desc&fq=yourField:yourQuery&fq=anotherField:anotherQuery > > > > > > -Jay > > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:40 AM, R. Tan wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > What's the best way to get auto-suggested terms/keywords that is > > filtered > > > > by > > > > one or more fields? TermsComponent should have been the solution but > > > > filters > > > > are not supported. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rihaed > > > > > > > > > >
Scoring for specific field queries
Hi, How can I get wildcard search (e.g. cha*) to score documents based on the position of the keyword in a field? Closer (to the start) means higher score. For example, I have multiple documents with titles containing the word "champion". Some of the document titles start with the word "champion" and some our entitled "we are the champions". The ones that starts with the keyword needs to rank first or score higher. Is there a way to do this? I'm using this query for auto-suggest term feature where the keyword doesn't necessarily need to be the first word. Rihaed
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
I will try this out. How does 1 and 2 boost the my startswith query? Is it because of the n-gram filter? On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > You would need to boost your "startswith" matches artificially for the > desired behavior. > I would do it this way - > > 1. Create a KeywordTokenized field with n-gram filter. > 2. Create a Whitespace tokenized field with n-gram flter. > 3. Search on both the fields, boost matches for #1 over #2. > > Hope this helps. > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Hi, > > How can I get wildcard search (e.g. cha*) to score documents based on the > > position of the keyword in a field? Closer (to the start) means higher > > score. > > > > For example, I have multiple documents with titles containing the word > > "champion". Some of the document titles start with the word "champion" > and > > some our entitled "we are the champions". The ones that starts with the > > keyword needs to rank first or score higher. Is there a way to do this? > I'm > > using this query for auto-suggest term feature where the keyword doesn't > > necessarily need to be the first word. > > > > Rihaed > > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
This might work and I also have a single value field which makes it cleaner. Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr parameters alone? Thanks! On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Sandeep Tagore wrote: > > Hi Rihaed, > I guess we don't need to depend on scores all the times. > You can use custom sort to sort the results. Take a dynamicField, fill it > with indexOf(keyword) value, sort the results by the field in ascending > order. Then the records which contain the keyword at the earlier position > will come first. > > Regards, > Sandeep > > > R. Tan wrote: > > > > Hi, > > How can I get wildcard search (e.g. cha*) to score documents based on the > > position of the keyword in a field? Closer (to the start) means higher > > score. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25798657.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
I will have to pass on this and try your suggestion first. So, how does your suggestion (1 and 2) boost the my startswith query? Is it because of the n-gram filter? On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Sandeep Tagore wrote: > > Yes it can be done but it needs some customization. Search for custom sort > implementations/discussions. > You can check... > > http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/RandomSortField.html > . > Let us know if you have any issues. > > Sandeep > > > R. Tan wrote: > > > > This might work and I also have a single value field which makes it > > cleaner. > > Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr parameters alone? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25799055.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Hi Avlesh, I can't seem to get the scores right. I now have these types for the fields I'm targeting, My query is this, q=*:*&fq=autoCompleteHelper:cha+autoCompleteHelper2:cha&qf=autoCompleteHelper^10.0+autoCompleteHelper2^1.0 What should I tweak from the above config and query? Thanks, Rih On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, R. Tan wrote: > I will have to pass on this and try your suggestion first. So, how does > your suggestion (1 and 2) boost the my startswith query? Is it because of > the n-gram filter? > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Sandeep Tagore > wrote: > >> >> Yes it can be done but it needs some customization. Search for custom sort >> implementations/discussions. >> You can check... >> >> http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/RandomSortField.html >> . >> Let us know if you have any issues. >> >> Sandeep >> >> >> R. Tan wrote: >> > >> > This might work and I also have a single value field which makes it >> > cleaner. >> > Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr parameters alone? >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25799055.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Hmm... I don't quite get the desired results. Those starting with "cha" are now randomly ordered. Is there something wrong with the filters I applied? On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > Filters? I did not mean filters at all. > I am in a mad rush right now, but on the face of it your field definitions > look right. > > This is what I asked for - > q=(autoComplete2:cha^10 autoComplete:cha) > > Lemme know if this does not work for you. > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Hi Avlesh, > > > > I can't seem to get the scores right. > > > > I now have these types for the fields I'm targeting, > > > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> > > > > > > > > > maxGramSize="20"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> > > > > > > > > > maxGramSize="20"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My query is this, > > > > > q=*:*&fq=autoCompleteHelper:cha+autoCompleteHelper2:cha&qf=autoCompleteHelper^10.0+autoCompleteHelper2^1.0 > > > > What should I tweak from the above config and query? > > > > Thanks, > > Rih > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > > > I will have to pass on this and try your suggestion first. So, how does > > > your suggestion (1 and 2) boost the my startswith query? Is it because > of > > > the n-gram filter? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Sandeep Tagore < > sandeep.tag...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Yes it can be done but it needs some customization. Search for custom > > sort > > >> implementations/discussions. > > >> You can check... > > >> > > >> > > > http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/RandomSortField.html > > >> . > > >> Let us know if you have any issues. > > >> > > >> Sandeep > > >> > > >> > > >> R. Tan wrote: > > >> > > > >> > This might work and I also have a single value field which makes it > > >> > cleaner. > > >> > Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr parameters > > alone? > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > > >> View this message in context: > > >> > > > http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25799055.html > > >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Avlesh, I don't see anything wrong with the data from analysis. KeywordTokenized: *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10 ** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **...* *term text ** **th** **he** **e ** **c** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** **pi** **io** **on** **the** **he ** **e c** **ch** **cha** **...* *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** ** word** **...* *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8** **7,9** **8,10** **9,11** **10,12** **0,3** **1,4** **2,5** **3,6** **...* WhitespaceTokenized: *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10 ** **11** **...* *term text ** **th** **he** **the** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** **pi** **io* * **on** **cha** **...* *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **...* *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **0,3** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8** **...* Is term position considered during scoring? Thanks, Rih On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > Use the field analysis tool to see how the data is being analyzed in both > the fields. > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Hmm... I don't quite get the desired results. Those starting with "cha" > are > > now randomly ordered. Is there something wrong with the filters I > applied? > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > > > > > Filters? I did not mean filters at all. > > > I am in a mad rush right now, but on the face of it your field > > definitions > > > look right. > > > > > > This is what I asked for - > > > q=(autoComplete2:cha^10 autoComplete:cha) > > > > > > Lemme know if this does not work for you. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Avlesh > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Avlesh, > > > > > > > > I can't seem to get the scores right. > > > > > > > > I now have these types for the fields I'm targeting, > > > > > > > > > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maxGramSize="20"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maxGramSize="20"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My query is this, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > q=*:*&fq=autoCompleteHelper:cha+autoCompleteHelper2:cha&qf=autoCompleteHelper^10.0+autoCompleteHelper2^1.0 > > > > > > > > What should I tweak from the above config and query? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rih > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, R. Tan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I will have to pass on this and try your suggestion first. So, how > > does > > > > > your suggestion (1 and 2) boost the my startswith query? Is it > > because > > > of > > > > > the n-gram filter? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Sandeep Tagore < > > > sandeep.tag...@gmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes it can be done but it needs some customization. Search for > > custom > > > > sort > > > > >> implementations/discussions. > > > > >> You can check... > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/RandomSortField.html > > > > >> . > > > > >> Let us know if you have any issues. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sandeep > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> R. Tan wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This might work and I also have a single value field which makes > > it > > > > >> > cleaner. > > > > >> > Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr parameters > > > > alone? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> View this message in context: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25799055.html > > > > >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
The problem is, I'm getting equal scores for this: Query: q=(autoCompleteHelper2:caf^10.0 autoCompleteHelper:caf) Partial Result: 0.7821733 Bikes Café 0.7821733 Cafe Feliy I'm using the standard request handler with this. Thanks, Rih On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM, R. Tan wrote: > Avlesh, > I don't see anything wrong with the data from analysis. > > KeywordTokenized: > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** ** > 10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **...* > *term text ** **th** **he** **e ** **c** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** **pi* > * **io** **on** **the** **he ** **e c** **ch** **cha** **...* > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > **word** **...* > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8 > ** **7,9** **8,10** **9,11** **10,12** **0,3** **1,4** **2,5** **3,6** ** > ...* > > WhitespaceTokenized: > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** ** > 10** **11** **...* > *term text ** **th** **he** **the** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** **pi** ** > io** **on** **cha** **...* > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **...* > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **0,3** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5 > ** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8** **...* > > Is term position considered during scoring? > > Thanks, > Rih > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > >> Use the field analysis tool to see how the data is being analyzed in both >> the fields. >> >> Cheers >> Avlesh >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM, R. Tan wrote: >> >> > Hmm... I don't quite get the desired results. Those starting with "cha" >> are >> > now randomly ordered. Is there something wrong with the filters I >> applied? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: >> > >> > > Filters? I did not mean filters at all. >> > > I am in a mad rush right now, but on the face of it your field >> > definitions >> > > look right. >> > > >> > > This is what I asked for - >> > > q=(autoComplete2:cha^10 autoComplete:cha) >> > > >> > > Lemme know if this does not work for you. >> > > >> > > Cheers >> > > Avlesh >> > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, R. Tan wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Avlesh, >> > > > >> > > > I can't seem to get the scores right. >> > > > >> > > > I now have these types for the fields I'm targeting, >> > > > >> > > > > > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > maxGramSize="20"/> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > maxGramSize="20"/> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > My query is this, >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> q=*:*&fq=autoCompleteHelper:cha+autoCompleteHelper2:cha&qf=autoCompleteHelper^10.0+autoCompleteHelper2^1.0 >> > > > >> > > > What should I tweak from the above config and query? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Rih >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, R. Tan >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I will have to pass on this and try your suggestion first. So, how >> > does >> > > > > your suggestion (1 and 2) boost the my startswith query? Is it >> > because >> > > of >> > > > > the n-gram filter? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Sandeep Tagore < >> > > sandeep.tag...@gmail.com >> > > > >wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Yes it can be done but it needs some customization. Search for >> > custom >> > > > sort >> > > > >> implementations/discussions. >> > > > >> You can check... >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/RandomSortField.html >> > > > >> . >> > > > >> Let us know if you have any issues. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Sandeep >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> R. Tan wrote: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > This might work and I also have a single value field which >> makes >> > it >> > > > >> > cleaner. >> > > > >> > Can sort be customized (with indexOf()) from the solr >> parameters >> > > > alone? >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -- >> > > > >> View this message in context: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://www.nabble.com/Scoring-for-specific-field-queries-tp25798390p25799055.html >> > > > >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Yup, it is. Both are copied from another field called name. On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > Lame question, but are you populating data in the autoCompleteHelper2 > field? > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > The problem is, I'm getting equal scores for this: > > Query: > > q=(autoCompleteHelper2:caf^10.0 autoCompleteHelper:caf) > > > > Partial Result: > > > > > > 0.7821733 > > Bikes Café > > > > > > > > 0.7821733 > > Cafe Feliy > > > > > > I'm using the standard request handler with this. > > > > Thanks, > > Rih > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > > > Avlesh, > > > I don't see anything wrong with the data from analysis. > > > > > > KeywordTokenized: > > > > > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** > > ** > > > 10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **...* > > > *term text ** **th** **he** **e ** **c** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** > > **pi* > > > * **io** **on** **the** **he ** **e c** **ch** **cha** **...* > > > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > **word > > > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > **word** > > > **word** **...* > > > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5** **4,6** **5,7** > > **6,8 > > > ** **7,9** **8,10** **9,11** **10,12** **0,3** **1,4** **2,5** **3,6** > ** > > > ...* > > > > > > WhitespaceTokenized: > > > > > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** > > ** > > > 10** **11** **...* > > > *term text ** **th** **he** **the** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** **pi** > ** > > > io** **on** **cha** **...* > > > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > **word > > > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **...* > > > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **0,3** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** > > **3,5 > > > ** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8** **...* > > > > > > Is term position considered during scoring? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rih > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > > > > > >> Use the field analysis tool to see how the data is being analyzed in > > both > > >> the fields. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Avlesh > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM, R. Tan > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hmm... I don't quite get the desired results. Those starting with > > "cha" > > >> are > > >> > now randomly ordered. Is there something wrong with the filters I > > >> applied? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Avlesh Singh > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Filters? I did not mean filters at all. > > >> > > I am in a mad rush right now, but on the face of it your field > > >> > definitions > > >> > > look right. > > >> > > > > >> > > This is what I asked for - > > >> > > q=(autoComplete2:cha^10 autoComplete:cha) > > >> > > > > >> > > Lemme know if this does not work for you. > > >> > > > > >> > > Cheers > > >> > > Avlesh > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, R. Tan > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Avlesh, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I can't seem to get the scores right. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I now have these types for the fields I'm targeting, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > positionIncrementGap="1"> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > maxGramSize="20"/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > &
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Yeah, I do get results. Anything else I missed out? I want it to work like this site's auto suggest feature. http://www.sematext.com/demo/ac/index.html Try the keyword 'formula'. Thanks, Rih On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > Can you just do q=autoCompleteHelper2:caf to see you get results? > > Cheers > Avlesh > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > Yup, it is. Both are copied from another field called name. > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote: > > > > > Lame question, but are you populating data in the autoCompleteHelper2 > > > field? > > > > > > Cheers > > > Avlesh > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM, R. Tan wrote: > > > > > > > The problem is, I'm getting equal scores for this: > > > > Query: > > > > q=(autoCompleteHelper2:caf^10.0 autoCompleteHelper:caf) > > > > > > > > Partial Result: > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.7821733 > > > > Bikes Café > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0.7821733 > > > > Cafe Feliy > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using the standard request handler with this. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rih > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM, R. Tan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Avlesh, > > > > > I don't see anything wrong with the data from analysis. > > > > > > > > > > KeywordTokenized: > > > > > > > > > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** > > **9** > > > > ** > > > > > 10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **...* > > > > > *term text ** **th** **he** **e ** **c** **ch** **ha** **am** > **mp** > > > > **pi* > > > > > * **io** **on** **the** **he ** **e c** **ch** **cha** **...* > > > > > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > > > **word > > > > > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > > > **word** > > > > > **word** **...* > > > > > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5** **4,6** > **5,7** > > > > **6,8 > > > > > ** **7,9** **8,10** **9,11** **10,12** **0,3** **1,4** **2,5** > > **3,6** > > > ** > > > > > ...* > > > > > > > > > > WhitespaceTokenized: > > > > > > > > > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** > > **9** > > > > ** > > > > > 10** **11** **...* > > > > > *term text ** **th** **he** **the** **ch** **ha** **am** **mp** > > **pi** > > > ** > > > > > io** **on** **cha** **...* > > > > > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** > > > > **word > > > > > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **...* > > > > > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **0,3** **0,2** **1,3** > **2,4** > > > > **3,5 > > > > > ** **4,6** **5,7** **6,8** **...* > > > > > > > > > > Is term position considered during scoring? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Rih > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Avlesh Singh > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Use the field analysis tool to see how the data is being analyzed > in > > > > both > > > > >> the fields. > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers > > > > >> Avlesh > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM, R. Tan > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hmm... I don't quite get the desired results. Those starting > with > > > > "cha" > > > > >> are > > > > >> > now randomly ordered. Is there something wrong with the filters > I > > > > >> applied? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Avlesh Singh > > > > wrote: > > > > >> &
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Thanks, I'll give this a go. What are the replacements for, the special
character and 20 char? Also, do you get results such as " formula"?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
> I have a very similar set-up for my auto-suggest (I am sorry that it can't
> be viewed from an external network).
> I am sending you my field definitions, please use them and see if it works
> out correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
> pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
>
> minGramSize="1" />
>
>
>
>
> pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
> pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> minGramSize="1" />
>
>
>
>
> pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
> pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
>
>
>
>
> stored="false"/>
> indexed="true" stored="true"/>
>
> q=(suggestion:formula^2 tokenized_suggestion:formula)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers
> Avlesh
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, R. Tan wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I do get results. Anything else I missed out?
> > I want it to work like this site's auto suggest feature.
> >
> > http://www.sematext.com/demo/ac/index.html
> >
> > Try the keyword 'formula'.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rih
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
> >
> > > Can you just do q=autoCompleteHelper2:caf to see you get results?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Avlesh
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM, R. Tan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yup, it is. Both are copied from another field called name.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Avlesh Singh
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lame question, but are you populating data in the
> autoCompleteHelper2
> > > > > field?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Avlesh
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM, R. Tan
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is, I'm getting equal scores for this:
> > > > > > Query:
> > > > > > q=(autoCompleteHelper2:caf^10.0 autoCompleteHelper:caf)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Partial Result:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.7821733
> > > > > > Bikes Café
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.7821733
> > > > > > Cafe Feliy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm using the standard request handler with this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Rih
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM, R. Tan
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Avlesh,
> > > > > > > I don't see anything wrong with the data from analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KeywordTokenized:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *term position ** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7**
> **8**
> > > > **9**
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > > 10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **...*
> > > > > > > *term text ** **th** **he** **e ** **c** **ch** **ha** **am**
> > > **mp**
> > > > > > **pi*
> > > > > > > * **io** **on** **the** **he ** **e c** **ch** **cha** **...*
> > > > > > > *term type ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word**
> > **word**
> > > > > > **word
> > > > > > > ** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word** **word**
> **word**
> > > > > > **word**
> > > > > > > **word** **...*
> > > > > > > *source start,end ** **0,2** **1,3** **2,4** **3,5*
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
How do these filters help the autosuggest?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
> >
> > What are the replacements for, the special character and 20 char?
> >
> I had no time to diff between your definitions and mine. Copy-pasting mine
> was easier :)
>
> Also, do you get results such as " formula"?
> >
> The "autocomplete" field would definitely not match this query, but the
> "tokenized autocomplete" would.
> Give it a shot, it should work as you expect it to.
>
> Cheers
> Avlesh
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM, R. Tan wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I'll give this a go. What are the replacements for, the special
> > character and 20 char? Also, do you get results such as " formula"?
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
> >
> > > I have a very similar set-up for my auto-suggest (I am sorry that it
> > can't
> > > be viewed from an external network).
> > > I am sending you my field definitions, please use them and see if it
> > works
> > > out correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
> > >
> > > > > minGramSize="1" />
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
> > > > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > minGramSize="1" />
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
> > > > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > stored="false"/>
> > > > > indexed="true" stored="true"/>
> > >
> > > q=(suggestion:formula^2 tokenized_suggestion:formula)
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Avlesh
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, R. Tan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, I do get results. Anything else I missed out?
> > > > I want it to work like this site's auto suggest feature.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sematext.com/demo/ac/index.html
> > > >
> > > > Try the keyword 'formula'.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rih
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Avlesh Singh
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can you just do q=autoCompleteHelper2:caf to see you get results?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Avlesh
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM, R. Tan
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yup, it is. Both are copied from another field called name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Avlesh Singh
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lame question, but are you populating data in the
> > > autoCompleteHelper2
> > > > > > > field?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Avlesh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM, R. Tan >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem is, I'm getting equal scores for this:
> > > > > > > > Query:
> > > > > > > > q=(autoCompleteHelper2:caf^10.0 autoCompleteHelper:caf)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Partial Result:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.7821733
> > > > > > > > Bikes Café
> > &g
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
I ended up with the same set of results earlier but I don't results such as
"the champion", I think because of the EdgeNGram filter.
With NGram, I'm back to the same problem:
Result for q=ca
0.8717008
Blu Jazz Cafe
0.8717008
Café in the Pond
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM, R. Tan wrote:
> How do these filters help the autosuggest?
> replacement="$1" replace="all" />
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
>
>> >
>> > What are the replacements for, the special character and 20 char?
>> >
>> I had no time to diff between your definitions and mine. Copy-pasting mine
>> was easier :)
>>
>> Also, do you get results such as " formula"?
>> >
>> The "autocomplete" field would definitely not match this query, but the
>> "tokenized autocomplete" would.
>> Give it a shot, it should work as you expect it to.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Avlesh
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM, R. Tan wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks, I'll give this a go. What are the replacements for, the special
>> > character and 20 char? Also, do you get results such as " formula"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Avlesh Singh wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have a very similar set-up for my auto-suggest (I am sorry that it
>> > can't
>> > > be viewed from an external network).
>> > > I am sending you my field definitions, please use them and see if it
>> > works
>> > > out correctly.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
>> > >
>> > >> > > minGramSize="1" />
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
>> > >> > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> > > minGramSize="1" />
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])" replacement="" replace="all" />
>> > >> > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?" replacement="$1" replace="all" />
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > > stored="false"/>
>> > > > > > indexed="true" stored="true"/>
>> > >
>> > > q=(suggestion:formula^2 tokenized_suggestion:formula)
>> > >
>> > > Hope this helps.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > > Avlesh
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, R. Tan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yeah, I do get results. Anything else I missed out?
>> > > > I want it to work like this site's auto suggest feature.
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.sematext.com/demo/ac/index.html
>> > > >
>> > > > Try the keyword 'formula'.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Rih
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Avlesh Singh
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Can you just do q=autoCompleteHelper2:caf to see you get results?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cheers
>> > > > > Avlesh
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM, R. Tan
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Yup, it is. Both are copied from another field called name.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Avlesh Singh
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Lame question, but are you populating data in the
>> > > autoCompleteHelper2
>> > > >
Re: Scoring for specific field queries
Avlesh, I got it, finally, by doing an OR between the two fields, one with an exact match keyword and the other is grouped. q=suggestion:"formula xxx" OR tokenized_suggestion:(formula ) Thanks for all your help! Rih On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, R. Tan wrote: > I ended up with the same set of results earlier but I don't results such as > "the champion", I think because of the EdgeNGram filter. > > With NGram, I'm back to the same problem: > > Result for q=ca > > > 0.8717008 > Blu Jazz Cafe > > > > 0.8717008 > Café in the Pond > > >
Letters with accent in query
Hi, I'm querying with an accented keyword such as "café" but the debug info shows that it is only searching for "caf". I'm using the ISOLatin1Accent filter as well. Query: http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=%E9&debugQuery=true Params return shows this: true What am I missing here? Rih
Re: Letters with accent in query
Correct. Apparently, Firefox is the only browser that translate it é to %E9. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : I'm querying with an accented keyword such as "café" but the debug info > : shows that it is only searching for "caf". I'm using the ISOLatin1Accent > ... > : http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=%E9&debugQuery=true > : > : Params return shows this: > : > : > > ...that's a pretty good tip off that you aren't URL encoding the character > they way your servlet container is expecting it. I suspect what you > really want is... > > http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=%C3%A9&debugQuery=true > > > > > > > -Hoss >
Collapse with multiple fields
Hi, Is it possible to collapse the results from multiple fields? Rih
Re: Collapse with multiple fields
Clever, I think that would work in some cases. On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Martijn v Groningen < martijn.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > No this actually not supported at the moment. If you really need to > collapse on two different field you can concatenate the two fields > together in another field while indexing and then collapse on that > field. > > Martijn > > 2009/10/23 Thijs : > > I haven't had time to actually ask this on the list my self but seeing > this, > > I just had to reply. I was wondering this myself. > > > > Thijs > > > > On 23-10-2009 5:50, R. Tan wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> Is it possible to collapse the results from multiple fields? > >> > >> Rih > >> > > >
