Hi Jörg,
Thanks for this link -- one of our search engineers started looking into
this, because the issue with sorting in a federated setting concerns
non-LTR based ranking as well.
In particular, it becomes visible in cursor based pagination in collections
that have shards with replicas. At any
solve the sorting/re-ranking issue. In the end we
> migrated the custom sorting formula to using the 'q' param instead of
> 'sort' to get back the results sorted by score as expected.
>
> That mostly solved our issues with inconsistent Solr scores. Maybe sorting
> and r
Hi Dmitry,
No, we were not able to solve the sorting/re-ranking issue. In the end we
migrated the custom sorting formula to using the 'q' param instead of
'sort' to get back the results sorted by score as expected.
That mostly solved our issues with inconsistent Solr scores.
n to get the first pass results (using the sort param), and then we
> use LTR for re-ranking. This works fine, i.e. re-ranking is applied on the
> topN, after sorting has completed and the order is correct.
>
> However, as we are migrating on SolrCloud (version 7.3.1) with multiple
>
ing the sort param), and then we
> use LTR for re-ranking. This works fine, i.e. re-ranking is applied on the
> topN, after sorting has completed and the order is correct.
>
> However, as we are migrating on SolrCloud (version 7.3.1) with multiple
> shards, this does not seem
hit result regardless where else this term may also exist in
>>> other records: the record with ID "MOD2012A" must be hit #1 on the
>> list.
>>>
>>> B) If a user searches for "MOD2012A manual" or "download MOD2012A
>>> manual" or "factory warranty for MOD2012A", etc. (without quotes) I
>>> want the record that matches this value in the ID field to be the first
>>> item in the hit result regardless where else this term may also exist in
>>> other records: the record with ID "MOD2012A" must be hit #1 on the
>> list.
>>>
>>> How can I achieve A and B?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, if “MOD2012A” does not match in the ID field but matches
>> in
>>> another field, then I need the normal search / hit / ranking to happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> As a side question, what should I be using, "qf" or "df"? I cannot
>> figure
>>> out the difference between the 2 in Solr's doc.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Steven
>>
>>
> B) If a user searches for "MOD2012A manual" or "download MOD2012A
> > manual" or "factory warranty for MOD00002012A", etc. (without quotes) I
> > want the record that matches this value in the ID field to be the first
> > item in the hit
re else this term may also exist in
> other records: the record with ID "MOD2012A" must be hit #1 on the list.
>
> How can I achieve A and B?
>
>
>
> Of course, if “MOD2012A” does not match in the ID field but matches in
> another field, then I need the normal search / hit / ranking to happen.
>
>
> As a side question, what should I be using, "qf" or "df"? I cannot figure
> out the difference between the 2 in Solr's doc.
>
> Thanks
>
> Steven
er records: the record with ID "MOD2012A" must be hit #1 on the list.
How can I achieve A and B?
Of course, if “MOD2012A” does not match in the ID field but matches in
another field, then I need the normal search / hit / ranking to happen.
As a side question, what should I be
HI all,
On our current master/slave setup (no cloud), we use a a custom sorting
function to get the first pass results (using the sort param), and then we
use LTR for re-ranking. This works fine, i.e. re-ranking is applied on the
topN, after sorting has completed and the order is correct
SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sat, 27 Jul 2019 13:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Erik Hatcher
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:55:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Ranking
Message-Id: <9df60f32-0a60-4c0f-90c2-98
The details of the scoring can be seen by setting &debug=true
Erik
> On Jul 27, 2019, at 15:40, Steven White wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have 2 files like so:
>
> FA has the letter "i" only 2 times, and the file size is 54,246 bytes
> FB has the letter "i" 362 times and the file size
I can’t imagine this is actually true unless you have a default copy field and
I is in one of them. Also the letter “I” is a bizarre test case
> On Jul 27, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Steven White wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have 2 files like so:
>
> FA has the letter "i" only 2 times, and the file s
Hi everyone,
I have 2 files like so:
FA has the letter "i" only 2 times, and the file size is 54,246 bytes
FB has the letter "i" 362 times and the file size is 9,953
When I search on the letter "i" FB is ranked lower which confuses me
because I was under the impression the occurrences of the ter
Hello,
Currently, if we use the ExplainAugmenterFactory with LtR, instead of using the
model/re-rankers explain method, it uses the default query explain (tf-idf
explanation). This happens because the BasicResultContext doesn't wrap the
query(https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/1d85cd783
Does debug=true show you that the scores are, indeed, computed exactly the same?
It could simply be that how you index doesn't contain the data you
need to see a difference. If you're searching on string fields for
instance, there isn't much "there there".
What I'd do is work from a stand-alone i
Hi,
Does anyone know what the default scorer for 4.10 is? BM25 or classic
tf-idf?
I have been trying to change that, in cloud mode. I have managed to change
the schema.xml in the zookeeper to add the following lines:
The commented line was also tried. So I have tried different syntax, usin
On 7/25/2018 10:46 PM, Reem wrote:
The way I found to change the ranking function is by setting the similarity
property of text fields in schema.xml as follows:
``
However, this means we can only set the similarity/ranking function only in
indexing time. As Solr is built over Lucene which
similarity to the new field in order to be able to change similarity for
every query. If someone has a better idea, I am also interested.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:51 AM Reem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to change the ranking function (e.g., BM25Similarity,
> Class
Hello,
Is it possible to change the ranking function (e.g., BM25Similarity,
ClassicSimilarity, LMDirichletSimilarity, etc) in search time?
The way I found to change the ranking function is by setting the similarity
property of text fields in schema.xml as follows:
``
However, this means we
that helps,
> Markus
>
> [1]
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/working-with-external-files-and-processes.html
>
> -Original message-
>> From:Huynh, Quynh
>> Sent: Thursday 5th April 2018 22:50
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Collazo,
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Collazo, Carlos ; Ganesan, VinothKumar
>
> Subject: Storing Ranking Scores And Documents In Separate Indices
>
> Hey Solr Community,
>
> We have a collection of product documents that we’d like to add fields to
> with ranking scores
Hey Solr Community,
We have a collection of product documents that we’d like to add fields to with
ranking scores generated by our data scientists.
Two options we’re considering is to either:
- Have a separate index that contains all the documents from our
product index, but with
m: Steven White [mailto:swhite4...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:01 AM
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: [Ext] Influence ranking based on document committed date
> >
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > Let's say I search
stamp at index time".
> You can sort desc on that field (can be a TrieDateField)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven White [mailto:swhite4...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:01 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Ext] Influence ran
ject: [Ext] Influence ranking based on document committed date
Hi everyone
Let's say I search for the word "Olympic" and I get a hit on 10 documents that
have similar content (let us assume the content is at least 80%
identical) how can I have Solr rank them so that the ones with m
Hi everyone
Let's say I search for the word "Olympic" and I get a hit on 10 documents
that have similar content (let us assume the content is at least 80%
identical) how can I have Solr rank them so that the ones with most
recently updated doc gets ranked higher? Is this something I have to do at
at 1:39 PM, Andrea Gazzarini wrote:
Hi Joel,
many thanks for the response and sorry for this late reply.
About the first question, I can open a JIRA for that. Instead, for
disabling the component I think it would be useful to add
- an automatic behaviour: if the sort criteria excludes the score the
for that. Instead, for
> disabling the component I think it would be useful to add
>
> - an automatic behaviour: if the sort criteria excludes the score the
> re-ranking could be automatically excluded
> - a parameter / flag (something like *rr=true*) which enables / disables
> the rerank
Hi Joel,
many thanks for the response and sorry for this late reply.
About the first question, I can open a JIRA for that. Instead, for
disabling the component I think it would be useful to add
- an automatic behaviour: if the sort criteria excludes the score the
re-ranking could be
> I have a Solr 4.10.4 instance with a RequestHandler that has a re-ranking
> query configured like this:
>
>
> dismax
> ...
> {!boost b=someFunction() v=$q}
> {!rerank reRankQuery=$rqq reRankDocs=60
> reRankWeight=1.2}
>
Hi guys,
I have a Solr 4.10.4 instance with a RequestHandler that has a
re-ranking query configured like this:
dismax
...
{!boost b=someFunction() v=$q}
{!rerank reRankQuery=$rqq reRankDocs=60
reRankWeight=1.2}
score desc
>>>> emir.arnauto...@sematext.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Nitin,
>>>>> Can you send us how your parsed query looks like (from debug output).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Emir
>>
ue is also not working in my case.
I have also removed the string type from copy fields. kindly look
into
the
changed configuration below:
Hi Emir,
I have changed the cofiguration as per your suggestion, added pf2 /
pf3.
Yes, i saw the difference but still the ranking is not getting
fo
g phrases will
> > come
> > > > first in the order and then the individual app.
> > > >
> > > > termPositions = true is also not working in my case.
> > > >
> > > > I have also removed the string type from copy fields. kindly
I have also removed the string type from copy fields. kindly look into
> > the
> > > changed configuration below:
> > >
> > > Hi Emir,
> > >
> > > I have changed the cofiguration as per your suggestion, added pf2 /
> pf3.
>
ve also removed the string type from copy fields. kindly look into
> the
> > changed configuration below:
> >
> > Hi Emir,
> >
> > I have changed the cofiguration as per your suggestion, added pf2 / pf3.
> > Yes, i saw the difference but still the ranking is no
the ranking is not getting followed
correctly in case of phrases.
Changed configuration;
Copy fields again for the reference :
Added following field type:
Removed the string type from the copy fields
. kindly look into the
changed configuration below:
Hi Emir,
I have changed the cofiguration as per your suggestion, added pf2 / pf3.
Yes, i saw the difference but still the ranking is not getting followed
correctly in case of phrases.
Changed configuration;
Copy fields again for the
ds and then sort
> based on your single valued fields.
>
> Either ways, you'll have to experiment and see what works best for you.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:21 PM Nitin.K wrote:
>
> > Thanks Binoy..
> >
> > Actually it is throwing following err
alued="true"/>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > > > > > >> multiValued="true"/>
>> > > > > >> > > stored="false"
>> > > > > >> multiV
ored="true"/>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >> positionIncrem
; > >> > > > class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
> > > > >> > > > >> ignoreCase="true"
> > > > >> words="stopwords.txt" />
> > > > >> > class="solr.LowerC
t;> class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > > class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/>
> > > >>
uot;stopwords.txt" />
> > >> > >> synonyms="synonyms.txt"
> > >> ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >&g
t;> synonyms="synonyms.txt"
> >> ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> positionIncrementGap="100"
> >> omitTermFreqAndPositions="true&quo
individual words (i.e word-1 AND word-2)
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257556.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management
Solr &
w can i first search the phrase and then go to the
> > individual words (i.e word-1 AND word-2)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257556.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User m
ow, how can i first search the phrase and then go to the
> individual words (i.e word-1 AND word-2)
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257556.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Regards,
Binoy Dalal
mutual count
of both the terms and based on that, its deciding the order.
kindly let me know, how can i first search the phrase and then go to the
individual words (i.e word-1 AND word-2)
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257556.html
Sent
these two fields and
also indexed them with term positions for phrase search ??
I tried using omitTermFreqAndPositions="true" and omitPositions="false" but
thats not working for me.
Thanks,
Nitin
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-
>> synonyms="synonyms.txt"
> >> ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> positionIncrementGap="100"
> >> omitTermFreqAndPositions
p="100"
>> omitTermFreqAndPositions="true" omitNorms="true">
>>
>> > class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"/>
>> > ignoreCase="true"
>> wo
ng
q.op="AND" in my query.
Thanks,
Nitin
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257510.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management
Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/
ceTokenizerFactory"/>
> > > ignoreCase="true"
> > words="stopwords.txt" />
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I want , if user will search for a phrase then that pharse should always
> > takes the priority in comaprison to the individual words;
> >
> > Example: "Eating Disorders"
> >
> > First it will search for "Eating Disorders" together and then the
> > individual
> > words "Eating" and "Disorders"
> > but while searching for individual words, it will always return those
> > documents where both the words should exist for which i am already using
> > q.op="AND" in my query.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nitin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257510.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
--
Regards,
Binoy Dalal
a phrase then that pharse should always
> takes the priority in comaprison to the individual words;
>
> Example: "Eating Disorders"
>
> First it will search for "Eating Disorders" together and then the
> individual
> words "Eating" and "Disorders"
> but while searching for individual words, it will always return those
> documents where both the words should exist for which i am already using
> q.op="AND" in my query.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257510.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
rds should exist for which i am already using
q.op="AND" in my query.
Thanks,
Nitin
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257510.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
e priority to the phrase search. Kindly suggest on
> this.
> I am using edismax parser right now.
> Using pf, pf2 and pf3 parameters but that too are not working properly.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257
context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257420.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257378.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Regards,
Binoy Dalal
Thanks Binoy..
Actually it is throwing following error:
can not sort on multivalued field: index_term
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-ranking-tp4257367p4257378.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
s
then it should look for index term and so on; to decide the ranking order
- I dont want to consider the no. of occurrences in multivalued fields but
if the two documents are having search term in topic_title, subtopic_title,
index_term and drug then the documents
should be ranked in the
n both topic_title and subtopic_title fields
> then it should look for index term and so on; to decide the ranking order
>
> - I dont want to consider the no. of occurrences in multivalued fields but
> if the two documents are having search term in topic_title, subtopic_title,
> inde
ranking order
- I dont want to consider the no. of occurrences in multivalued fields but
if the two documents are having search term in topic_title, subtopic_title,
index_term and drug then the documents
should be ranked in the order of no. of occurrences inside the content
field.
Kindly help in
Hi Li Li,
I am experiencing the same problem. can you Explain little detailed?
Where do i change these methods?
I am using Solr 5.0.0, And How do i query this? Is there any change while
query?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Ranking-based-on-term-position
the scores are calculated, providing a definitive answer in _your_
situation.
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:44 AM, wrote:
> (reposing this to see if anyone can help)
>
>
> Help me understand this better (regarding ranking).
>
> If I have two docs that are 100% identical
Thanks Walter. This explains a lot.
- MJ
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood [mailto:wun...@wunderwood.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:41 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cores and and ranking (search quality)
If the documents are distributed randomly across
le cores, will
> my ranking be impacted vs. using single core?
>
> I have records to index and each record can be grouped into object-types,
> such as object-A, object-B, object-C, etc. I have a total of 30 (maybe more)
> object-types. There may be only 10 records of object-A,
Thanks Walter.
The design decision I'm trying to solve is this: using multiple cores, will my
ranking be impacted vs. using single core?
I have records to index and each record can be grouped into object-types, such
as object-A, object-B, object-C, etc. I have a total of 30 (maybe
estion is,
> during search, will both of those docs rank near each other or not? […]
>
> Put another way: are docs from the smaller core (the one has 10 docs only)
> rank higher or lower compared to docs from the larger core (the one with
> 100,000) docs?
These are not quite the same q
> during search, will both of those docs rank near each other or not? If so,
> this is great because it will behave the same as if I had one core and index
> both docs to this single core. If not, which core's doc will rank higher and
> how far apart the two docs be from each oth
l behave the same as if I had one core and index
both docs to this single core. If not, which core's doc will rank higher and
how far apart the two docs be from each other in the ranking?
Put another way: are docs from the smaller core (the one has 10 docs only) rank
higher or lower compare
(reposing this to see if anyone can help)
Help me understand this better (regarding ranking).
If I have two docs that are 100% identical with the exception of uid (which is
stored but not indexed). In a single core setup, if I search "xyz" such that
those 2 docs end up ranking as
Help me understand this better (regarding ranking).
If I have two docs that are 100% identical with the exception of uid (which is
stored but not indexed). In a single core setup, if I search "xyz" such that
those 2 docs end up ranking as #1 and #2. When I switch over to two core
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 14:34 +0100, johnmu...@aol.com wrote:
> My question is this: if I put my data in multiple cores and use
> distributed search will the ranking be different if I had all my data
> in a single core?
Yes, it will be different. The practical impact depends on how
homogen
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Cores and and ranking (search quality)
>
> Hi,
>
> I have data in which I will index and search on. This data is well define
> such that I can index into a single core or multiple cores like so:
> core_1:Jan2015, core_2:Feb2015, core_3:Mar
ranking be different if I had all my data in a single core? If
yes, how will it be different? Also, will facet and more-like-this quality /
result be the same?
Also, reading the distributed search wiki
(http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearch) it looks like Solr does the
search and
in
> > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query
> > >
> > > have a good research!
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Nicholas Ding
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Currently, I'm try
://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query
> >
> > have a good research!
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Nicholas Ding
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Currently, I'm trying to implement a ranking algorithm on So
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, I'm trying to implement a ranking algorithm on Solr to include
> > TFIDFSimilarity score into a formula.
> >
> > Ranking = TFIDFSimilarity Score * X1 + V1 * X2 + V2 * X3 + . + Vn-1 *
> > Xn
> >
> > Basically
y
>
> have a good research!
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Nicholas Ding
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, I'm trying to implement a ranking algorithm on Solr to include
> > TFIDFSimilarity score into a formula.
> >
> > Ranking = TFI
Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Nicholas Ding
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently, I'm trying to implement a ranking algorithm on Solr to include
> TFIDFSimilarity score into a formula.
>
> Ranking = TFIDFSimilarity Score * X1 + V1 * X2 + V2 * X3 + . + Vn-1 *
> Xn
>
> Basica
Hi,
Currently, I'm trying to implement a ranking algorithm on Solr to include
TFIDFSimilarity score into a formula.
Ranking = TFIDFSimilarity Score * X1 + V1 * X2 + V2 * X3 + . + Vn-1 * Xn
Basically, the values of Vn are stored in DocValues, I can access them in
customized Function
Hi Tomas,
Sorry for the confusion. That link (open issue) means that, it is a proposed
and desired functionality. However it didn't included in code base yet.
You could do :
* ping the author through jira and request to bring patch to trunk
* vote for the issue
* you could try if patch works w
Hi,
thanks for the link. I've upgraded from the used 4.7 to the
recent 4.9 version. I've tried to use the new feature with this query in
the admin interface using edismax:
description:Kühler^~1^5
However,
the result seems to stay the same:
description:Kühler~1^5
description:Kühler~1^5
(+de
Hi,
Please see : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3925
Ahmet
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:39 PM, Thomas Michael Engelke
wrote:
Hi,
an example. We have 2 records with this data in the same field
(description):
1: Lufthutze vor Kühler Bj 62-65, DS
2: Kühler HY im
Austausch, Alttei
Hi,
an example. We have 2 records with this data in the same field
(description):
1: Lufthutze vor Kühler Bj 62-65, DS
2: Kühler HY im
Austausch, Altteilpfand 250 Euro
A search with the parameters
'description:Kühler' does provide this debug:
2.3234584 = (MATCH)
weight(description:kühler in 40
tically process debug info, this is the
> recomended way to to so.
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137p4149521.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: Thank you very much Erik. This is exactly what I was looking for. While at
: the moment I have no clue about these numbers, they ruby formatting makes it
: much more easier to understand.
Just to be clear, regardless of *which* response writer you use (xml,
ruby, json, etc...) the default beha
re to what debug gives
you.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: O. Olson
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:45 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Understanding the Debug explanations for Query Result
Scoring/Ranking
Hi,
If you add /*&debug=true*/ to the Solr request
it anyway)
>
> Erik
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137p4149226.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
his tool, it's great.
>>
>> Uwe
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137p4149217.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
abble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137p4149217.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
eciate if someone can tell me which class dumps out the above
data. If I know it, I can edit that class to make the output a bit more
understandable for me.
Thank you,
O. O.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
bit more
understandable for me.
Thank you,
O. O.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
e if someone can tell me which class dumps out the above
data. If I know it, I can edit that class to make the output a bit more
understandable for me.
Thank you,
O. O.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Debug-explanations-for-Query-Result-Scoring-Ranking-tp4149137.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
For the better analysis for ranking of documents, you should need to query
the index with these extra parameters(in bold)
eg...whole_query*&debug=true&wt=xml.*
Copy that xml and and paste it to http://explain.solr.pl/ you can then
easily find out the ranking alalysis in the forms of the pi
On 4/8/2014 3:55 AM, azhar2007 wrote:
Im basically trying to understand how results are ranked. Whats the algorithm
behind it
If you add a debugQuery parameter to your request, set to true, you will
see the score calculation for every document included in the response.
This is the default s
Im basically trying to understand how results are ranked. Whats the algorithm
behind it
--- Original Message ---
From: "Shawn Heisey-4 [via Lucene]"
Sent: 7 April 2014 19:24
To: "azhar2007"
Subject: Re: Ranking code
On 4/7/2014 10:29 AM, azhar2007 wrote:
> Hi does
On 4/7/2014 10:29 AM, azhar2007 wrote:
Hi does anybody know where the ranking code is held. Which file in Solr
stores it the solr schema.xml or solrconfig.xml file?
Your question is very generic. It needs to be more specific -- what are
you actually trying to do?
The generic answer is
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
