But if you have that "score" in a field, you could use that field as part
of a function-query instead of directly sorting on it, that would mix this
"score" with the score calculated with other fields.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> Yeah, I guess that would work. I wasn'
Yeah, I guess that would work. I wasn't sure if it would change relative
to other documents. But if it were to be combined with other fields,
that approach may not work because the calculation wouldn't include the
scoring for other parts of the query. So then you have the dynamic score
and what to
Can't you simply calculate that at index time and assign the result to a
field, then sort by that field.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> I'm going to try index time per-field boosting and do the boost
> computation at index time and see if that helps.
>
> On Thu, 2012-03
I'm going to try index time per-field boosting and do the boost
computation at index time and see if that helps.
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 10:08 -0400, Darren Govoni wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a situation I want to re-score document relevance.
>
> Let's say I have two fields:
>
> text: The quick brown f
Hi Carlos,
> "query_score" is a field that is indexed and stored
> with every document.
Thanks for clarifying that, now the whole query-string makes more sense
to me.
Did you check whether query() - without product() and pow() - is also
much slower than a normal query?
I guess, if the performanc
Hi Em:
The HTTP request is not gonna help you a lot because we use a custom
QParser (that builds the query that I've pasted before). In any case, here
it is:
http://localhost:8080/solr/core0/select?shards=…(shards
here)…&indent=on&wt=exon&timeAllowed=50&fl=resulting_phrase%2Cquery_id%2Ctype%2Chig
Could you please provide me the original request (the HTTP-request)?
I am a little bit confused to what "query_score" refers.
As far as I can see it isn't a magic-value.
Kind regards,
Em
Am 20.02.2012 14:05, schrieb Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas:
> Yeah Em, it helped a lot :)
>
> Here it is (for the u
Yeah Em, it helped a lot :)
Here it is (for the user query "hoteles"):
*+(stopword_shortened_phrase:hoteles | stopword_phrase:hoteles |
wildcard_stopword_shortened_phrase:hoteles |
wildcard_stopword_phrase:hoteles) *
*product(pow(query((stopword_shortened_phrase:hoteles |
stopword_phrase:hoteles
Carlos,
nice to hear that the approach helped you!
Could you show us how your query-request looks like after reworking?
Regards,
Em
Am 20.02.2012 13:30, schrieb Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas:
> Hello all:
>
> We've done some tests with Em's approach of putting a BooleanQuery in front
> of our user q
Hello all:
We've done some tests with Em's approach of putting a BooleanQuery in front
of our user query, that means:
BooleanQuery
must (DismaxQuery)
should (FunctionQuery)
The FunctionQuery obtains the SOLR IR score by means of a QueryValueSource,
then does the SQRT of this value, and t
Thanks Em, Robert, Chris for your time and valuable advice. We'll make some
tests and will let you know soon.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Em wrote:
> Hello Carlos,
>
> I think we missunderstood eachother.
>
> As an example:
> BooleanQuery (
> clauses: (
> MustMatch(
>
I just modified some TestCases a little bit to see how the FunctionQuery
behaves.
Given that you got an index containing 14 docs, where 13 of them
containing the term "batman" and two contain the term "superman", a
search for
q=+text:superman _val_:"query($qq)"&qq=text:superman
Leads to two hits
Hello Carlos,
I think we missunderstood eachother.
As an example:
BooleanQuery (
clauses: (
MustMatch(
DisjunctionMaxQuery(
TermQuery("stopword_field", "barcelona"),
TermQuery("stopword_field", "hoteles")
)
),
Sh
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas
wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> We'd like to score the matching documents using a combination of SOLR's IR
> score with another application-specific score that we store within the
> documents themselves (i.e. a float field containing the app-specifi
: We'd like to score the matching documents using a combination of SOLR's IR
: score with another application-specific score that we store within the
: documents themselves (i.e. a float field containing the app-specific
: score). In particular, we'd like to calculate the final score doing some
:
Hello Em:
1) Here's a printout of an example DisMax query (as you can see mostly MUST
terms except for some SHOULD terms used for boosting scores for stopwords)
*
*
*((+stopword_shortened_phrase:hoteles +stopword_shortened_phrase:barcelona
stopword_shortened_phrase:en) | (+stopword_phrase:hoteles
Hello Carlos,
> We have some more tests on that matter: now we're moving from issuing this
> large query through the SOLR interface to creating our own
QueryParser. The
> initial tests we've done in our QParser (that internally creates multiple
> queries and inserts them inside a DisjunctionMaxQue
Hello Em:
Thanks for your answer.
Yes, we initially also thought that the excessive increase in response time
was caused by the several queries being executed, and we did another test.
We executed one of the subqueries that I've shown to you directly in the
"q" parameter and then we tested this s
Hello Carlos,
well, you must take into account that you are executing up to 8 queries
per request instead of one query per request.
I am not totally sure about the details of the implementation of the
max-function-query, but I guess it first iterates over the results of
the first max-query, after
Hello Em:
The URL is quite large (w/ shards, ...), maybe it's best if I paste the
relevant parts.
Our "q" parameter is:
"q":"_val_:\"product(query_score,max(query($q8),max(query($q7),max(query($q4),query($q3)\"",
The subqueries q8, q7, q4 and q3 are regular queries, for example:
"q7
Hello carlos,
could you show us how your Solr-call looks like?
Regards,
Em
Am 16.02.2012 14:34, schrieb Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas:
> Hello all:
>
> We'd like to score the matching documents using a combination of SOLR's IR
> score with another application-specific score that we store within the
>
bump
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Custom-Scoring-relying-on-another-server-tp2994546p3006873.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi Pavel,
I had the similar problem several years ago - I had to find
geographical locations in textual descriptions, geocode these objects
to lat/long during indexing process and allow users to filter/sort
search results to specific geographical areas. The important issue was
that there were seve
Have a look at http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_2/scoring.html on how Lucene's
scoring works. You can override the Similarity class in Solr as well via the
schema.xml file.
On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Pavel Minchenkov wrote:
> Hi,
> Please give me advise how to create custom scoring. I ne
Check out the function query feature, and the bf= parameter. It may be
that the existing functions meet your needs, or that you can add a few
new functions.
It can take a while to understand what you really want to do, so
writing a large piece of code now can be wasteful.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at
Hi Otis,
Finally i construct my own function query that gives more score if the value
is at the start of the field. But, its possible to tell solr to use
spanFirstQuery without coding. I think i have read that its no possible.
Thanks,
Marco Martínez Bautista
http://www.paradigmatecnologico.com
Marco,
I don't think there is anything in Solr to do that (is there?), but you could
do it with some coding if you combined the "regular query" with SpanFirstQuery
with bigger boost:
http://search-lucene.com/jd/lucene/org/apache/lucene/search/spans/SpanFirstQuery.html
Oh, here are some exampl
On 5-Sep-08, at 5:01 PM, Ravindra Sharma wrote:
I am looking for an example if anyone has done any custom scoring with
Solr/Lucene.
I need to implement a Query similar to DisjunctionMaxQuery, the only
difference would
be it should score based on sum of score of sub queries' scores
instead of
: I need to implement a Query similar to DisjunctionMaxQuery, the only
: difference would
: be it should score based on sum of score of sub queries' scores instead of
: max.
BooleanQuery computes scores that are the sub of hte subscores -- you just
need to disable the coordFactor (there is a con
The only thing I can suggest is that each and every Query in Solr/
Lucene is an example of custom scoring. You might be better off
starting w/ TermQuery and working through PhraseQuery, BooleanQuery,
on up. At the point you get to DisJunctionMax, then ask questions
about that specific one.
30 matches
Mail list logo
