2018 at 12:07 PM, Wei wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Recently we have an observation that really puzzled us. We have two
>> > instances of Solr, one in stand alone mode and one is a single-shard
>> solr
>> > cloud with a couple of replicas. Both are
gle-shard
> solr
> > cloud with a couple of replicas. Both are indexed with the same
> documents
> > and have same solr version 6.6.2. When issue the same query, the solr
> > score from stand alone and cloud are different. How could this happen?
> > With the same data,
2018 21:19
> To: solr-user
> Subject: Re: Different solr score between stand alone vs cloud mode solr
>
> Short form:
>
> As docs are updated, they're marked as deleted until the segment is
> merged. This affects things like term frequency and doc frequency
> which i
gle-shard
> solr
> > cloud with a couple of replicas. Both are indexed with the same
> documents
> > and have same solr version 6.6.2. When issue the same query, the solr
> > score from stand alone and cloud are different. How could this happen?
> > With the
an observation that really puzzled us. We have two
> instances of Solr, one in stand alone mode and one is a single-shard solr
> cloud with a couple of replicas. Both are indexed with the same documents
> and have same solr version 6.6.2. When issue the same query, the solr
> score from
score from stand alone and cloud are different. How could this happen?
With the same data, software version and query, should solr score be
exactly same regardless of cloud mode or not?
Thanks,
Wei
On 2/23/2018 2:28 PM, Hodder, Rick wrote:
> Combining everything into one query is what I'd prefer because as you said,
> one would think that with everything in the same query, the score would
> organize everything nicely.
I don't recall writing anything like that. How did you infer that from
riday, February 23, 2018 10:41 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOLR Score Range Changed
The difference seems due to the fact that default similarity in solr 7 is
BM25 while it used to be TF-IDF in solr 4. As you realised, BM25 function is
smoother.
You can configure schema.xml t
AND West) OR (IDX_CompanyName:
Carpentry AND Land)
Searching for 750 rows has hits that are all focused on Consolidated (seemingly
because the number of words causes the SOLR score to go up into a higher range
for all Consolidated results, as mentioned in my previous email.) Searching for
all 3
The difference seems due to the fact that default similarity in solr 7 is
BM25 while it used to be TF-IDF in solr 4. As you realised, BM25 function
is smoother.
You can configure schema.xml to use ClassicSimilarity, for instance
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/major-changes-from-solr-5-to-
On 2/22/2018 9:50 AM, Hodder, Rick wrote:
I am migrating from SOLR 4.10.2 to SOLR 7.1.
All seems to be going well, except for one thing: the score that is coming back
for the resulting documents is giving different scores.
The absolute score has no meaning when you change something -- the
in
I am migrating from SOLR 4.10.2 to SOLR 7.1.
All seems to be going well, except for one thing: the score that is coming back
for the resulting documents is giving different scores.
The core uses a schema. Here's the schema info for the field that i am
searching on:
When searching maxrows=75
I would like to stress how important is what Erick explained.
A lot of times people want to use the score to show it to the
users/calculate probability/doing weird calculations.
Score is used to rank results, given a query.
To give a local ordering.
This is the only useful information for the end
gt; >> Oki but If ID Just make an simple query with a "where Claude" and sort
> by
> >> a field i See no sense in calculating a score right?
> >>
> >> Am 01.12.2017 16:33 schrieb "Aman Tandon" :
> >>
> >>> Hi Faraz,
> &
chm. schrieb "Faraz Fallahi" <
> faraz.fall...@googlemail.com>:
>
>> Oki but If ID Just make an simple query with a "where Claude" and sort by
>> a field i See no sense in calculating a score right?
>>
>> Am 01.12.2017 16:33 schrieb "Aman Ta
e right?
>
> Am 01.12.2017 16:33 schrieb "Aman Tandon" :
>
>> Hi Faraz,
>>
>> Solr score which you could retrieved by adding in fl parameter could be
>> helpful to understand the following:
>>
>> 1) search relevance ranking: how much score s
Oki but If ID Just make an simple query with a "where Claude" and sort by a
field i See no sense in calculating a score right?
Am 01.12.2017 16:33 schrieb "Aman Tandon" :
> Hi Faraz,
>
> Solr score which you could retrieved by adding in fl parameter could be
> hel
Hi Faraz,
Solr score which you could retrieved by adding in fl parameter could be
helpful to understand the following:
1) search relevance ranking: how much score solr has given to the top &
second top document, and with debug=true you could better understand what
is causing that score.
2)
Hi
A simple question: what are the most common use cases for the solr score of
documents retrieved after firing queries?
I dont have a real understanding of its purpose at the moment.
Thx for helping
g made, maybe it could solves the problem.
Thanks for your help!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331614.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
rank solr provide
> us with the ratio of documents so unrelated documents will be penalized
> while those with higher ratio values will be overrated.
>
> Greetings, and thanks for your help.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331315.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
nked as high as documents related. So,
>in
>order to penalize them we are trying to use the ratio or term
>frequency/word
>length.
>
>Nevertheless we aren't able to find a practical way to make it.
>
>Greetings.
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in con
le to find a practical way to make it.
Greetings.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331342.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
eting, word
> selection and so on.
>
> Greeting
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331331.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
. To establish a threshold of minimums,
so that, we are trying to use hit ratio to modify score.
After we rank on that topics, all work after that is about faceting, word
selection and so on.
Greeting
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score
while those with higher ratio values will be overrated.
>
> Greetings, and thanks for your help.
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331315.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
so unrelated documents will be penalized
while those with higher ratio values will be overrated.
Greetings, and thanks for your help.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331315.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
neer, Director
Sease Ltd. - www.sease.io
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300p4331310.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Modify-solr-score-tp4331300.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
with the field &
> fieldType details for all of the fields used in your example?
>
> (i'm guessing it probably relates to your firstName_phonetic field?)
>
>
>
> : Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:17:04 -0700
> : From: Rick Sullivan
> : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache
7;m guessing it probably relates to your firstName_phonetic field?)
: Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:17:04 -0700
: From: Rick Sullivan
: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"
: Subject: RE: Solr debug 'explain' values differ from the Solr score
:
d.
I've tested the problem using SolrCloud 5.5.0, Solr 5.5.0 (not cloud), and Solr
5.4.1.
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
-Rick
From: r...@ricksullivan.net
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Solr debug 'explain' values differ from the Solr score
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:34:30
values seem to agree. However, in the final score I receive, that
document's score has been adjusted down.
The relevant debug response information can be found here:
http://apaste.info/mju
Does anyone have an idea why the Solr score may differ from the debug value?
Thanks,-Rick
gt; doc1 score =8
> doc2 score =6.4
> doc3 score=6
> doc8score=5.5
> doc5 score=2
> i wana to change solr score threashold .in this way i set threashold for
> example >4
> and then i didn't get doc5 as result.can i do this?if yes how?
> and if not how i can modified search to
sult
>> doc1 score =8
>> doc2 score =6.4
>> doc3 score=6
>> doc8score=5.5
>> doc5 score=2
>> i wana to change solr score threashold .in this way i set threashold for
>> example >4
>> and then i didn't get doc5 as result.can i do this?if yes ho
score =6.4
doc3 score=6
doc8score=5.5
doc5 score=2
i wana to change solr score threashold .in this way i set threashold for
example >4
and then i didn't get doc5 as result.can i do this?if yes how?
and if not how i can modified search to don't get docs as a result that
these docs have a
hi all,
i wanna to know about solr search relevency scoreing threashold.
can i change it?
i mean immagine when i searching i get this result
doc1 score =8
doc2 score =6.4
doc3 score=6
doc8score=5.5
doc5 score=2
i wana to change solr score threashold .in this way i set threashold for
example >4
Hello,
I would like to use the Solr score distribution to pick up most relevant
documents from the search result. Rather than top n results, I am
interested only in picking up the most relevant based on statistical
distribution of the scores.
A brief study of some sample searches (the most
Thank you so much, Mikhail! It works perfectly.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Nicholas Ding
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mikhail,
> >
> > Thank you very much! I'm using eDisMax by default, I think I will need to
>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Nicholas Ding
wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Thank you very much! I'm using eDisMax by default, I think I will need to
> change it to defType=func and
I wonder why do you ask, because the given link has three examples of
including edismax into the simple calculation.
Hi Nicholas,
you can use "sort by function" feature of solr.
&sort=sum(
mul(query(field:TfIdfQuery),x1),
mul(x1,v2))
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:23 PM, Nicholas Ding
wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
Thank you very much! I'm using eDisMax by default, I think I will need to
change it to defType=func a
Hi Mikhail,
Thank you very much! I'm using eDisMax by default, I think I will need to
change it to defType=func and pass all the query parameters (fq mainly) to
the sub query right?
Nicholas Ding
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> Hello Nic
Hello Nicholas!
you can specify a function query as a main query where you can operate with
DVs, then you can use regular tfidf score from arbitrary query as one of
the arguments in the functional query see an example in
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query
have a good research!
On Thu
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 Query. Th
Shay this presentation I gave at apachecon and dc solr exchange might
be useful to you:
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/o19s/hacking-lucene-for-custom-search-results
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Shay Sofer
Sent: 7/16/2014 6:03 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Solr score
[mailto:arafa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:53 PM
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: Solr score manager
How are you storing this information in your documents?
Regards,
Alex
On 16/07/2014 5:03 pm, "Shay Sofer" wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I need a specific score mechanism.
How are you storing this information in your documents?
Regards,
Alex
On 16/07/2014 5:03 pm, "Shay Sofer" wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I need a specific score mechanism.
>
> I would like to sort my results based on customize scoring field.
> scoring for example -
>
>
>
> 1. If this is a new ob
Hi All,
I need a specific score mechanism.
I would like to sort my results based on customize scoring field.
scoring for example -
1. If this is a new object - 100
2. Edited - 80
3. Recent search - 50
4. Opened - 40
and some more actions...
And then when execute a n
Good.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4138135.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I will send the debugQuery. They are exactly the same.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Raymond Wiker wrote:
> Are you sure that SOLR is rounding incorrectly, and not simply differently
> from what you expect? I was surprised myself at some of the rounding
> behaviour I saw with SOLR, but acco
Are you sure that SOLR is rounding incorrectly, and not simply differently
from what you expect? I was surprised myself at some of the rounding
behaviour I saw with SOLR, but according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding , the results were valid (just not
the round-up-from-half that I naively
When doing complex boosting/bq we are getting rounding errors on the score.
To get the score to be consistent I needed to use rint on sort:
sort=rint(product(sum($p_score,$s_score,$q_score),100)) desc,s_query asc
recip(priority,1,.5,.01)
product(recip(synonym_rank,1,1,.01),17)
query({!dismax qf
Thanks for your replies.
I am actually doing the frange approach for now. The only downside I see there
is it makes the function call twice, calling createWeight() twice. And so my
social connections are evaluated twice which is quite heavy operation. So I was
thinking if I could get away with o
On 17 September 2013 18:31, Mamta Thakur wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> As per this post here
> http://grokbase.com/t/lucene/solr-user/131jzcg3q2/how-to-round-solr-score.
> I was able to use my custom fn in
> sort(defType=func&q=socialDegree(id,1)&fl=score,*&sort=score%20asc)
: 'score' is a pseudo-field, i.e., it does not actually exist in
: the index, which is probably why it cannot be faceted on.
: Faceting on a rounded score seems like an unusual use
: case. What requirement are you trying to address?
agreed, more details would be helpful.
FWIW: the only way avail
Hi ,
As per this post here
http://grokbase.com/t/lucene/solr-user/131jzcg3q2/how-to-round-solr-score.
I was able to use my custom fn in
sort(defType=func&q=socialDegree(id,1)&fl=score,*&sort=score%20asc) - works,
but can't facet on the
same(defType=func&q=socialDegree(i
hen
> navigate through the XML modifying the scores and reordering the whole list
> of products (or maybe just the first N results) by the new combined score.
>
> What do you think?
> A big THANKS in advance
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: With this approach now I can boost (i.e. multiply Solr's score by a factor)
: the results of any query by doing something like this:
: http://localhost:8080/solr/Prueba/select_test?q={!boost
: b=rating(usuario1)}text:grapa&fl=score
:
: Where 'rating' is the name of my function.
:
: Unfortunate
ValueSourceParser's parse
call, storing the map in the ValueSource. Then my floatVal method would just
be a 'get' from my map.
I'm so close!
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-fo
:
http://www.slideshare.net/thelabdude/boosting-documents-in-solr-lucene-revolution-2011
...
: > Start by looking at Solr's external file field and
Rather then using ExternalFileField as imspiration, i would suggest you
look at implementing a custom ValueSourceParser...
http://mail-arc
rong ;)
> The key does not have to be necessarily the docID. It can be some other
> field. Anyway, even in that case, it's still a 'docKey' which I can't see
> how could it be user-customized... :(
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http:/
'docKey' which I can't see
how could it be user-customized... :(
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4040616.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
see if I can find there my holy grail :P
Thanks A LOT!
Regards,
Álvaro
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4040597.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
;
>> I'm now wondering if a custom implementation of a ValueSource + a
>> FunctionQuery is a solution to my problem...
>>
>> Any hint?
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Álvaro
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4040444.html
>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
t;
> Any hint?
> Thanks!
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4040444.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
f a ValueSource + a
FunctionQuery is a solution to my problem...
Any hint?
Thanks!
Álvaro
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200p4040444.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ybe just the first N results) by the new combined score.
What do you think?
A big THANKS in advance
Álvaro
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Combining-Solr-score-with-customized-user-ratings-for-a-document-tp4040200.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 18 January 2013 19:18, Gustav wrote:
> Hey Gora, thanks for the fast answer!
>
> I Had tried the rint(score) function before(it would be perfect in my case)
> but it didnt work out, i guess it only works with indexed fields, so i got
> the "sort param could not be parsed as a query, and is not
message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-round-solr-score-tp495198p4034551.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 18 January 2013 18:26, Gustav wrote:
> I have to bump this... is it possible to do it (round solr's score) with any
> integrated query function??
Do not have a Solr index handy at the moment to check,
but it should be possible to do this with function queries.
Please see the rint() and query()
: Not really. The percentage given in other search packages is fairly
: bogus. You have to do a global batch analysis of all of the index to
: get a true scale for relevance.
Exactly...
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#Why_Aren.27t_Scores_returned_as_a_percentage.3F_How_Do_I_normalize_Scores.3F
rch fields)
> formula, but please allow me to tell you that Solr score can help us to
> define this document is relevant or not in some cases.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold-reasonably-independent-of-results
You are right Mr.Ravish, because this depends on (ranking and search fields)
formula, but please allow me to tell you that Solr score can help us to
define this document is relevant or not in some cases.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold
It will never return no result because its relative to score in previous
result
If score<0.25*last_score then stop
Since score>0 and last score is 0 for initial hit it will not stop
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold-reas
; --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold-reasonably-independent-of-results-returned-tp4002312p4002673.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
use this.
If I always have that x% threshold in place , there may be many queries
which would not return anything and I certainly do not want that.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold-reasonably-independent-of-results-returned
ot_2012-08-21_at_5.30.38_AM.png
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3747
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-threshold-reasonably-independent-of-results-returned-tp4002312.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Customizing-Solr-score-with-DixMax-query-tp3779591p3781200.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--- On Mon, 2/27/12, Xiao wrote:
> From: Xiao
> Subject: Customizing Solr score with DixMax query
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Monday, February 27, 2012, 5:59 AM
> In my application logic, I want to
> implement the ranking (scoring) logic as
> follows
{!boost
b=field1}data. In this case, Solr does return a score which is a production
of two scores. However, by using boosted query, I lost the power of dismax
query which can search across multiple fields.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Customizin
: Perhaps you can solve your usecase by playing with the new eDismax
: "boost" parameter, which multiplies the functions with the other score
: instead of adding.
and FWIW: the "boost" param of the edismax parser is really just syntactic
sugar for using the "BoostQParsre wrapped arround an edi
return scores between 0 & 1. The score returned by
> textual match (qf) ranges from 0 to
>
> To allow better combination of text match & my functions, I want the text
> score to be normalized between 0 & 1. Is there any way I can achieve that
> here?
>
> Thanks
>
:To allow better combination of text match & my functions, I want the text
: score to be normalized between 0 & 1. Is there any way I can achieve that
: here?
It is achievable, but it is not usualy meaningful...
https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ScoresAsPercentages
-Hoss
nges from 0 to
To allow better combination of text match & my functions, I want the text
score to be normalized between 0 & 1. Is there any way I can achieve that
here?
Thanks
Sid
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Score-Normalization-tp3481627p3
dy:"softwar engin"^100.0), product of:
> 100.0 = boost
> 5.3680387 = idf(body: softwar=34 engin=223)
> 0.0018621174 = queryNorm
> 0.58712924 = fieldWeight(body:"softwar engin" in 339), product of:
> 1.0 = tf(phraseFreq=1.0)
> 5.368038
), product of:
1.0 = tf(phraseFreq=1.0)
5.3680387 = idf(body: softwar=34 engin=223)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(field=body, doc=339)
please suggest me.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-score-issue-tp2574680p2574680.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <
shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Walter Underwood > wrote:
>
>> I think what you want to do is add in a function query that gives
>> values in that range.
>>
>
> The scale function won't work in this use-c
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <
shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yonik added a way to use the score of a query in function queries with
> SOLR-939. Look at the "query" function on the wiki. Some very cool things
> are possible now :)
>
Sorry, that should have been SOLR
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Walter Underwood
wrote:
> I think what you want to do is add in a function query that gives
> values in that range.
>
The scale function won't work in this use-case because it will give you a
double in the given range. So you cannot do sort by score and price. Fo
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> I don't there there is an existing way to round them. But it will be a
>> useful contribution if you can write a function query for rounding.
>>
>> Look at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery
>>
>
> What did you have in mind, Shali
PM, squaro wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to cut solr score to 3 or 4 digits .
>> Indeed I would like to be able to sort by score, then by another critria (
>> price for example).
>> So if two docs have score of 1.67989 and 1.6767, I would l
On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM, squaro
wrote:
Hello,
I would like to cut solr score to 3 or 4 digits .
Indeed I would like to be able to sort by score, then by another
critria (
price for example).
So if two docs have score
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM, squaro wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to cut solr score to 3 or 4 digits .
> Indeed I would like to be able to sort by score, then by another critria (
> price for example).
> So if two docs have score of 1.67989 and 1.6767, I would l
Hello,
I would like to cut solr score to 3 or 4 digits .
Indeed I would like to be able to sort by score, then by another critria (
price for example).
So if two docs have score of 1.67989 and 1.6767, I would like to sort them
by price.
Do you have any idea how I could do that ?
--
View this
s used for
> this
> purpose. Isn't it true?
> Anybody knows about it?
> Please help me.
>
> with Regards,
> Santhanaraj R
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/solr-score-tp19642046p19642046.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
?
Anybody knows about it?
Please help me.
with Regards,
Santhanaraj R
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/solr-score-tp19642046p19642046.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: It's trivial for the client to normalize if desired - take the top scoring
: document, if it's greater than 1.0 then scale all scores based on that.
this is why doclists include the "maxScore" in their output as well, to
make it easy to normalize scores even if you are using pagination (or
so
Solr returns the raw score, not the Lucene Hits normalized one.
It's trivial for the client to normalize if desired - take the top
scoring document, if it's greater than 1.0 then scale all scores
based on that.
Erik
On Oct 26, 2007, at 2:53 AM, zx zhang wrote:
Hi, everyone!
As w
Hi, everyone!
As we known, solr uses lucene scoring.
This score is the raw score. Scores returned from Hits aren't
necessarily the raw score, however. If the top-scoring document scores
greater than 1.0, all scores are normalized from that score, such that
all scores from Hits are uaranteed to be 1
On 3/1/07, Pierre-Yves LANDRON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't seen that maxScore you're speaking about. It's exactly what I
needed.
It's an attribute in when you elect to return scores.
0
0
score,*
ipod
on
2.4851787
electronicsconnector
car power adapter for iPod, white
I
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
