Hi Doug / Walter, I'm just using this methodology. PFB link of my sample code. https://github.com/saaay71/solr-vector-scoring
The only issue is speed of response for 1M records. On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:24 AM Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote: > tf.idf was invented because cosine similarity is too much computation. > tf.idf gives similar results much, much faster than cosine distance. > > I would expect cosine similarity to be slow. I would also expect > retrieving 1 million records to be slow. Doing both of those in one minute > is pretty good. > > As Kernighan and Paugher said in 1978, "Don’t diddle code to make it > faster—find a better algorithm.” > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Programming_Style > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > > On Aug 11, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Doug Turnbull < > dturnb...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Vignan, > > > > We need to see more details / code of what your query parser plugin does > > exactly with term vectors, we can't really help you without more details. > > Is it open source? Can you share a minimal example that recreates the > > problem? > > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:19 PM Vignan Malyala <dsmsvig...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> I made my custom qparser plugin in Solr for scoring. The plugin only > does > >> cosine similarity of vectors for each record. I use term vectors here. > >> Results are fine! > >> > >> BUT, Solr response is very slow with term vectors. It takes around 55 > >> seconds for each request for 1000000 records. > >> How do I make it faster to get my results in ms ? > >> Please respond soon as its lil urgent. > >> > >> Note: All my values are stored and indexed. I am not using Solr Cloud. > >> > > > > > > -- > > *Doug Turnbull **| CTO* | OpenSource Connections > > <http://opensourceconnections.com>, LLC | 240.476.9983 > > Author: Relevant Search <http://manning.com/turnbull> > > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > > of whether attachments are marked as such. > >
