Folks, Yuriy, I suppose that we are going to proceed with
>>> Reducing on Ignite The obvious point of distributed response reduction is class GridCacheDistributedQueryFuture. Though, @Ivan Pavlukhin mentioned class with similar functionality: ReduceIndexSorted What I see here, that it is tangled with H2 related classes (org.h2.result.Row) and might not be unified with TextQuery reduction. >> >From my side there is no strict opinion that we should unify reduction. Having a separate reduction implementation for text queries sounds for me as not bad option as well. Are there still any open questions? ср, 27 нояб. 2019 г. в 02:27, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > I don't see anything wrong if Yuriy is willing to carry on and keep > enhancing our full-text search support that lacks basic capabilities. > > The basics should be available. If anybody needs an advanced feature they > can introduce Solr or ElastiSearch into the final architecture of the app. > > Folks, who of us can help Yuriy with the questions asked? Most like the SQL > experts are the best candidates here. > > > - > Denis > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:52 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > IEP is an Ignite-specific thing. In fact, I suppose that we are > > already doing it in ASF way by having this dev-list discussion =) > > > > As for me, implementing "limit" feature for text queries is not so big > > to make an IEP. But we might need to create one for next features. > > > > вт, 26 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:06, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > ASF way should probably start with an IEP :) > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > вт, 26 нояб. 2019 г. в 14:12, Zhenya Stanilovsky > > <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, lets forgot Solr and go through ASF way, if Yuriy prove this > > > > functionality is helpful and PR it, why not ? > > > > > > > > isn`t it ? > > > > > > > > >Вторник, 26 ноября 2019, 14:06 +03:00 от Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > >Hello! > > > > > > > > > >The problem here is that Solr is a multi-year effort by a lot of > > people. > > > > We > > > > >can't match that. > > > > > > > > > >Maybe we could integrate with Solr/Solr Cloud instead, by feeding our > > > > cache > > > > >information into their storage for indexing and relying on their own > > > > >mechanisms for distributed IR sorting? > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >-- > > > > >Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >вт, 26 нояб. 2019 г. в 13:59, Zhenya Stanilovsky < > > > > arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > > > > >>: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Ilya Kasnacheev, what a problem in Solr with Ignite functionality ? > > > > >> > > > > >> thanks ! > > > > >> > > > > >> >Вторник, 26 ноября 2019, 13:50 +03:00 от Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > >> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Hello! > > > > >> > > > > > >> >I have a hunch that we are trying to build Apache Solr (or Solr > > Cloud) > > > > >> into > > > > >> >Apache Ignite. I think that's a lot of effort that is not very > > > > justified. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >I don't think we should try to implement sorting in Apache Ignite, > > > > because > > > > >> >it is a lot of work, and a lot of code in our code base which we > > don't > > > > >> >really want. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Regards, > > > > >> >-- > > > > >> >Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >пт, 22 нояб. 2019 г. в 20:59, Yuriy Shuliga < shul...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Dear Igniters, > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> The first part of TextQuery improvement - a result limit - was > > > > developed > > > > >> >> and merged. > > > > >> >> Now we have to develop most important functionality here - proper > > > > >> sorting > > > > >> >> of Lucene index response and correct reducing of them for > > distributed > > > > >> >> queries. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> *There are two Lucene based aspects* > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> 1. In case of using no sorting fields, the documents in response > > are > > > > >> still > > > > >> >> ordered by relevance. > > > > >> >> Actually this is ScoreDoc.score value. > > > > >> >> In order to reduce the distributed results correctly, the score > > > > should > > > > >> be > > > > >> >> passed with response. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> 2. When sorting by conventional fields, then Lucene should have > > these > > > > >> >> fields properly indexed and > > > > >> >> corresponding Sort object should be applied to Lucene's search > > call. > > > > >> >> In order to mark those fields a new annotation like '@SortField' > > may > > > > be > > > > >> >> introduced. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> *Reducing on Ignite * > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> The obvious point of distributed response reduction is class > > > > >> >> GridCacheDistributedQueryFuture. > > > > >> >> Though, @Ivan Pavlukhin mentioned class with similar > > functionality: > > > > >> >> ReduceIndexSorted > > > > >> >> What I see here, that it is tangled with H2 related classes ( > > > > >> >> org.h2.result.Row) and might not be unified with TextQuery > > reduction. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Still need a support here. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Overall, the goal of this letter is to initiate discussion on > > > > TextQuery > > > > >> >> Sorting implementation and come closer to ticket creation. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> BR, > > > > >> >> Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> вт, 22 жовт. 2019 о 13:31 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> пише: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Hi Dmitry, Yuriy. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I've found GridCacheQueryFutureAdapter has newly added > > > > AtomicInteger > > > > >> >> > 'total' field and 'limit; field as primitive int. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Both fields are used inside synchronized block only. > > > > >> >> > So, we can make both private and downgrade AtomicInteger to > > > > primitive > > > > >> >> int. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Most likely, these fields can be replaced with one field. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:01 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi Andrey, > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > I've checked this ticket comments, and there is a TC Bot visa > > > > (with > > > > >> no > > > > >> >> > > blockers). > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Do you have any concerns related to this patch? > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Sincerely, > > > > >> >> > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > чт, 17 окт. 2019 г. в 16:43, Yuriy Shuliga < > > shul...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> Andrey, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Per you request, I created ticket > > > > >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12291 linked > > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/IGNITE/issues/IGNITE-12189 > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Could you please proceed with PR merge ? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> BR, > > > > >> >> > >> Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> ср, 9 жовт. 2019 о 12:52 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> пише: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > Hi Yuri, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > To get access to TC Bot you should register as TeamCity > > user > > > > >> [1], if > > > > >> >> > you > > > > >> >> > >> > didn't do this already. > > > > >> >> > >> > Then you will be able to authorize on Ignite TC Bot page > > with > > > > >> same > > > > >> >> > >> > credentials. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/registerUser.html > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:10 PM Yuriy Shuliga < > > > > shul...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> Andrew, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> >> I have corrected PR according to your notes. Please > > review. > > > > >> >> > >> >> What will be the next steps in order to merge in? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> >> Y. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> >> чт, 3 жовт. 2019 о 17:47 Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> пише: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> >> > Yuri, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > I've done with review. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > No crime found, but trivial compatibility bug. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:54 PM Yuriy Shuliga < > > > > >> shul...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > Denis, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > Thank you for your attention to this. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > as for now, the > > > > >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12189 > > > > >> >> > >> >> > ticket > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > is still pending review. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > Do we have a chance to move it forward somehow? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > BR, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > пн, 30 вер. 2019 о 23:35 Denis Magda < > > > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > >> пише: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > I've seen you opening a pull-request with the first > > > > >> changes: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12189 > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > Alex Scherbakov and Ivan are you the right guys to > > do > > > > the > > > > >> >> > review? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > - > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > Denis > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:48 AM Павлухин Иван < > > > > >> >> > >> vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Thank you for providing details! Quite > > interesting. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Yes, we already have support of distributed > > limit and > > > > >> >> merging > > > > >> >> > >> >> sorted > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > subresults for SQL queries. E.g. > > ReduceIndexSorted > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > MergeStreamIterator are used for merging sorted > > > > streams. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Could you please also clarify about > > score/relevance? > > > > Is > > > > >> it > > > > >> >> > >> >> provided > > > > >> >> > >> >> > by > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Lucene engine for each query result? I am > > thinking > > > > how > > > > >> to > > > > >> >> do > > > > >> >> > >> >> sorted > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > merge properly in this case. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > ср, 25 сент. 2019 г. в 18:56, Yuriy Shuliga < > > > > >> >> > shul...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > >> >: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Ivan, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Thank you for interesting question! > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Text searches (or full text searches) are > > mostly > > > > >> >> > >> human-oriented. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > And > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > point of user's interest is topmost part of > > > > response. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Then user can read it, evaluate and use the > > given > > > > >> records > > > > >> >> > for > > > > >> >> > >> >> > further > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > purposes. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Particularly in our case, we use Ignite for > > > > operations > > > > >> >> with > > > > >> >> > >> >> > financial > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > data, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > and there lots of text stuff like assets names, > > > > fin. > > > > >> >> > >> >> instruments, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > companies > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > etc. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > In order to operate with this quickly and > > reliably, > > > > >> users > > > > >> >> > >> used > > > > >> >> > >> >> to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > work > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > with > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > text search, type-ahead completions, > > suggestions. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > For this purposes we are indexing particular > > string > > > > >> data > > > > >> >> in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > separate > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > caches. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Sorting capabilities and response size > > limitations > > > > are > > > > >> >> very > > > > >> >> > >> >> > important > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > there. As our API have to provide most relevant > > > > >> >> information > > > > >> >> > >> in > > > > >> >> > >> >> view > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > of > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > limited size. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Now let me comment some Ignite/Lucene > > perspective. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Actually Ignite queries and Lucene returns > > > > >> >> > >> *TopDocs.scoresDocs > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > *already > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > sorted by *score *(relevance). So most relevant > > > > >> documents > > > > >> >> > >> are on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > top. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > And currently distributed queries responses > > from > > > > >> >> different > > > > >> >> > >> nodes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > are > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > merged > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > into final query cursor queue in arbitrary way. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > So in fact we already have the score order > > ruined > > > > >> here. > > > > >> >> > Also > > > > >> >> > >> >> Ignite > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > requests all possible documents from Lucene > > that is > > > > >> >> > redundant > > > > >> >> > >> >> and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > good > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > for performance. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > I'm implementing *limit* parameter to be part > > of > > > > >> >> *TextQuery > > > > >> >> > >> *and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > have > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > notice that we still have to add sorting for > > text > > > > >> queries > > > > >> >> > >> >> > processing > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > order to have applicable results. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > *Limit* parameter itself should improve the > > part of > > > > >> >> issues > > > > >> >> > >> from > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > above, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > but > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > definitely, sorting by document score at least > > > > should > > > > >> be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > implemented > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > along > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > with limit. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > This is a pretty short commentary if you still > > have > > > > >> any > > > > >> >> > >> >> questions, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > please > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > ask, do not hesitate) > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > BR, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > чт, 19 вер. 2019 о 11:38 Павлухин Иван < > > > > >> >> > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> пише: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Greatly appreciate your interest. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Could you please elaborate a little bit about > > > > >> sorting? > > > > >> >> > What > > > > >> >> > >> >> tasks > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > does > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > it help to solve and how? It would be great > > to > > > > >> provide > > > > >> >> an > > > > >> >> > >> >> > example. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > ср, 18 сент. 2019 г. в 09:39, Alexei > > Scherbakov < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com >: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > I like the idea of throwing an exception > > for > > > > >> enabled > > > > >> >> > text > > > > >> >> > >> >> > queries > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > persistent caches. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > Also I'm fine with proposed limit for > > unsorted > > > > >> >> > searches. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > Yury, please proceed with ticket creation. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 17 сент. 2019 г., 22:06 Denis Magda < > > > > >> >> > >> dma...@apache.org > > > > >> >> > >> >> >: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I see nothing wrong with Yury's proposal > > in > > > > >> regards > > > > >> >> > >> >> full-text > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > API > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > evolution as long as Yury is ready to > > push it > > > > >> >> > forward. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for the in-memory mode only, it makes > > > > total > > > > >> >> sense > > > > >> >> > >> for > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > in-memory > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > data > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > grid deployments when Ignite caches data > > of > > > > an > > > > >> >> > >> underlying > > > > >> >> > >> >> DB > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > like > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Postgres. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As part of the changes, I would simply > > throw > > > > an > > > > >> >> > >> exception > > > > >> >> > >> >> (by > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > default) > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > if > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the one attempts to use text indices > > with the > > > > >> >> native > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > persistence > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > enabled. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > If the person is ready to live with that > > > > >> limitation > > > > >> >> > >> that > > > > >> >> > >> >> an > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > explicit > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > configuration change is needed to come > > around > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> >> exception. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > - > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:44 AM Yuriy > > > > Shuliga < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > shul...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hello to all again, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for important comments and > > notes > > > > >> given > > > > >> >> > >> below! > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Let me answer and continue the > > discussion. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (I) Overall needs in Lucene indexing > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Alexei has referenced to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5371 > > > > >> >> > >> where > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > absence of index persistence was > > declared > > > > as > > > > >> an > > > > >> >> > >> >> obstacle to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > further > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > development. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) This ticket is already closed as not > > > > >> valid.b) > > > > >> >> > >> There > > > > >> >> > >> >> are > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > definite > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > needs > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (and in our project as well) in just > > > > in-memory > > > > >> >> > >> indexing > > > > >> >> > >> >> of > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > selected > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > data. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > We intend to use search capabilities > > for > > > > >> fetching > > > > >> >> > >> >> limited > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > amount > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > of > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > records > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that should be used in type-ahead > > search / > > > > >> >> > >> suggestions. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Not all of the data will be indexed > > and the > > > > >> are > > > > >> >> no > > > > >> >> > >> need > > > > >> >> > >> >> in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > Lucene > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > index > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > be persistence. Hope this is a wide > > > > pattern of > > > > >> >> > >> >> text-search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > usage. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (II) Necessary fixes in current > > > > >> implementation. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) Implementation of correct *limit > > > > *(*offset* > > > > >> >> > seems > > > > >> >> > >> to > > > > >> >> > >> >> be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > not > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > required > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > text-search tasks for now) > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I have investigated the data flow for > > > > >> distributed > > > > >> >> > >> text > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > queries. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > it > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > was > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > simple test prefix query, like > > > > 'name'*='ene*'* > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For now each server-node returns all > > > > response > > > > >> >> > >> records to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > client-node > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and it may contain ~thousands, ~hundred > > > > >> thousands > > > > >> >> > >> >> records. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Event if we need only first 10-100. > > Again, > > > > all > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> >> results > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > are > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > added > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > queue in GridCacheQueryFutureAdapter in > > > > >> arbitrary > > > > >> >> > >> order > > > > >> >> > >> >> by > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > pages. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I did not find here any means to > > deliver > > > > >> >> > >> deterministic > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > result. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So implementing limit as part of query > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > (GridCacheQueryRequest) > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > will > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > not > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > change the nature of response but will > > > > limit > > > > >> load > > > > >> >> > on > > > > >> >> > >> >> nodes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > networking. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Can we consider to open a ticket for > > this? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (III) Further extension of Lucene API > > > > >> exposition > > > > >> >> to > > > > >> >> > >> >> Ignite > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) Sorting > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The solution for this could be: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Make entities comparable > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Add custom comparator to entity > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Add annotations to mark sorted > > fields for > > > > >> >> Lucene > > > > >> >> > >> >> indexing > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Use comparators when merging > > responses or > > > > >> >> > reducing > > > > >> >> > >> to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > desired > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > limit on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > client node. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Will require full result set to be > > loaded > > > > into > > > > >> >> > >> memory. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > Though > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > can be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > used > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > for relatively small limits. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > пт, 30 серп. 2019 о 10:37 Alexei > > > > Scherbakov < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > пише: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Note what one of major blockers for > > text > > > > >> >> queries > > > > >> >> > is > > > > >> >> > >> >> [1] > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > which > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > makes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lucene > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > indexes unusable with persistence and > > > > main > > > > >> >> reason > > > > >> >> > >> for > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > discontinuation. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Probably it's should be addressed > > first > > > > to > > > > >> make > > > > >> >> > >> text > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > queries > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > a > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > valid > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > product feature. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Distributed sorting and advanved > > > > querying is > > > > >> >> > indeed > > > > >> >> > >> >> not a > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > trivial > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > task. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Some kind of merging must be > > implemented > > > > on > > > > >> >> query > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > originating > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > node. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5371 > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 29 авг. 2019 г. в 23:38, Denis > > Magda > > > > < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > dma...@apache.org > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ready to take over the > > > > >> full-text > > > > >> >> > >> search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > indexes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > then > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > please > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > go > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ahead. The primary reason why the > > > > >> community > > > > >> >> > >> wants to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > discontinue > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > them > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > (and, probable, resurrect later) > > are > > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> limitations > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > listed > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > by > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Andrey > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > minimal support from the community > > end. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:29 PM > > Andrey > > > > >> >> > Mashenkov > > > > >> >> > >> < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yuriy, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunatelly, there is a plan > > to > > > > >> >> > discontinue > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > TextQueries > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Motivation here is text indexes > > are > > > > not > > > > >> >> > >> >> persistent, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > transactional > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can't be user together with SQL > > or > > > > >> inside > > > > >> >> > SQL. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and there is a lack of interest > > from > > > > >> >> > community > > > > >> >> > >> >> side. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are weclome to take on these > > > > issues > > > > >> and > > > > >> >> > >> make > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > TextQueries > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > great. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1, PageSize can't be used to > > limit > > > > >> >> > resultset. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Query results return from data > > node > > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> client-side > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > cursor > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > page-by-page > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > manner and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this parameter is designed > > control > > > > page > > > > >> >> size. > > > > >> >> > >> It > > > > >> >> > >> >> is > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > supposed > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > query > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > executes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > lazily on server side and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not excepted full > > resultset be > > > > >> loaded > > > > >> >> > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> memory > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > server > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > side > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > at > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > once, but by pages. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean you found Lucene load > > > > entire > > > > >> >> > >> resultset > > > > >> >> > >> >> > into > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > memory > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > before > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > page is sent to client? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think a new parameter should > > be > > > > >> added > > > > >> >> to > > > > >> >> > >> limit > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > result. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > The > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > best > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > solution is to use query language > > > > >> commands > > > > >> >> > for > > > > >> >> > >> >> this, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > e.g. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "LIMIT/OFFSET" > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This task doesn't look trivial. > > > > Query is > > > > >> >> > >> >> distributed > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > operation > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user query will be executed on > > data > > > > >> nodes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and then results from all nodes > > > > should > > > > >> be > > > > >> >> > >> correcly > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > merged > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > before > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > being > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > returned via client-cursor. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, LIMIT should be applied on > > every > > > > >> node > > > > >> >> and > > > > >> >> > >> >> then on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > merge > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > phase. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, this may be non-obviuos, > > > > limiting > > > > >> >> > results > > > > >> >> > >> >> make > > > > >> >> > >> >> > no > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > sence > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > without > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > sorting, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > as there is no guarantee every > > next > > > > >> query > > > > >> >> run > > > > >> >> > >> will > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > return > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > same > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > data > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of page reordeing. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, merge phase receive > > > > results > > > > >> from > > > > >> >> > >> data > > > > >> >> > >> >> > nodes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > asynchronously > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > messages from different nodes > > can't > > > > be > > > > >> >> > ordered. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a. "tokenize" param name (for > > > > >> >> > @QueryTextFiled) > > > > >> >> > >> >> looks > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > more > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > verbose, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > b,c. What about distributed > > query? > > > > How > > > > >> >> > partial > > > > >> >> > >> >> > results > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > from > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > nodes > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > will > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > merged? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does Lucene allows to configure > > > > >> comparator > > > > >> >> > for > > > > >> >> > >> >> data > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > sorting? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What comparator Ignite should > > choose > > > > to > > > > >> >> sort > > > > >> >> > >> >> result > > > > >> >> > >> >> > on > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > merge > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > phase? > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For now Lucene engine is not > > > > >> >> configurable > > > > >> >> > at > > > > >> >> > >> >> all. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > E.g. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > it is > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > impossible > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to configure Tokenizer. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think about possible ways to > > > > >> configure > > > > >> >> > >> engine > > > > >> >> > >> >> at > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > first > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > only > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > go > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > further to discuss\implement > > complex > > > > >> >> > features, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > that may depends on engine > > config. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:17 PM > > Yuriy > > > > >> >> > Shuliga < > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > shul...@gmail.com > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear community, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By starting this chain I'd > > like to > > > > >> open > > > > >> >> > >> >> discussion > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > that > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > would > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > come > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution results in subj. > > area. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite has indexing > > capabilities, > > > > >> backed > > > > >> >> up > > > > >> >> > >> by > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > different > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > mechanisms, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > including Lucene. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, Lucene 7.5.0 is used > > > > (past > > > > >> >> year > > > > >> >> > >> >> > release). > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a wide spread and > > mature > > > > >> >> technology > > > > >> >> > >> that > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > covers > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > text > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > area > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond (e.g. spacial data > > > > >> indexing). > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My goal is to *expose more > > Lucene > > > > >> >> > >> functionality > > > > >> >> > >> >> to > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > Ignite > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > indexing > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > query mechanisms for text > > data*. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's quite simple request at > > > > current > > > > >> >> stage. > > > > >> >> > >> It > > > > >> >> > >> >> is > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > coming > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > from our > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > project's > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs, but i believe, will be > > > > useful > > > > >> for > > > > >> >> a > > > > >> >> > >> lot > > > > >> >> > >> >> more > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > people. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's walk through and vote or > > > > discuss > > > > >> >> > about > > > > >> >> > >> >> Jira > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > tickets for > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > them. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.[trivial] Use > > > > >> dataQuery.getPageSize() > > > > >> >> > to > > > > >> >> > >> >> limit > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > response > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > items > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside GridLuceneIndex.query(). > > > > >> Currently > > > > >> >> > it > > > > >> >> > >> is > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > calling > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IndexSearcher.search(query, > > > > >> >> > >> >> *Integer.MAX_VALUE*) - > > > > >> >> > >> >> > so > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > basically > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > all > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > scored > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > matches will me returned, what > > we > > > > do > > > > >> not > > > > >> >> > >> need in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > most > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > cases. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.[simple] Add sorting. Then > > more > > > > >> >> capable > > > > >> >> > >> >> search > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > call > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > can be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > executed: > > > > *IndexSearcher.search(query, > > > > >> >> > count, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sort) * > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Implementation steps: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Introduce boolean > > *sortField* > > > > >> >> parameter > > > > >> >> > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > *@QueryTextFiled * > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > annotation. If > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *true *the filed will be > > indexed > > > > but > > > > >> not > > > > >> >> > >> >> tokenized. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Number > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > types > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > are > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > preferred here. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Add *sort* collection to > > > > >> *TextQuery* > > > > >> >> > >> >> > constructor. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > It > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > should > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > define > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > desired sort fields used for > > > > querying. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) Implement Lucene sort usage > > in > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > GridLuceneIndex.query(). > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.[moderate] Build complex > > queries > > > > >> with > > > > >> >> > >> >> > *TextQuery*, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > including > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > terms/queries boosting. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *This section for voting only, > > as > > > > >> >> requires > > > > >> >> > >> more > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > detailed > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > work. > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Should > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > extended if community is > > > > interested in > > > > >> >> it.* > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your > > comments! > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> > >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > -- > > > > >> >> > >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
