Efficient rule matching goes further back, at least to "alerting" in Verity K2.
wunder Search Guy, Chegg On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:15 AM, J. Delgado wrote: > BTW, the idea of indexing Boolean Expressions inside a text indexing engine > is not new. For example Oracle Text provides the CTXRULE index and the > MATCHES operator within their indexing stack, which is primarily used for > Rule-based text classification. > > See: > > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/text.111/b28303/query.htm#autoId8 > > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/text.111/b28303/classify.htm#g1011013 > > -- J > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM, J. Delgado <[email protected]> > wrote: > In full dislosure, there is a patent application that Yahoo! has filed for > the use of inverted indexes for using complex predicates for matching > contracts and opportunities in advertising: > http://www.google.com/patents/US20110016109?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false > > However I believe there are many more applications that can benefit from > similar matching techniques (i.e. recommender systems, e-commerce, > recruiting,etc) to make it worthwhile implementing the ideas exposed in the > original VLDB'09 paper (which is public) in Lucene. > > As a Yahoo! employee, I might not be able to directly contribute to this > project but will be happy to point to any publicly available pointer that can > help. > > Cheers, > > -- Joaquin > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Mikhail Khludnev > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Joaquin, > > I looked through the paper several times, and see no problem to implement it > in Lucene (the trivial case at least): > > Let's index conjunctive condition as > {fieldA:valA,fieldB:valB,fieldC:valC,numClauses:3} > > then, form query from the incoming fact (event): > fieldA:valA OR fieldB:valB OR fieldC:valC OR fieldD:valD > > to enforce overlap between condition and event, wrap the query above into own > query whose scorer will check that numClauses for the matched doc is equal to > number of matched clauses. > To get "numClauses for the matched doc" you can use FieldCache that's damn > fast; and "number of matched clauses" can be obtained from > DisjunctionSumScorer.nrMatchers() > > Negative clauses, and multivalue can be covered also, I believe. > > WDYT? > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:05 PM, J. Delgado <[email protected]> wrote: > I looked at LUCENE-2987 and its work on the query side (changes to the > accepted syntax to accept lower case 'or' and 'and'), which isn't really > related to my proposal. > > What I'm proposing is to be able to index complex boolean expressions using > Lucene. This can be viewed as the opposite of the regular search task. The > objective here is find a set of relevant queries given a document (assignment > of values to fields). > > This by itself may not sound that interesting but its a key piece to > efficiently implementing any MATCHING system which is effectively a two-way > search where constraints are defined both-ways. An example of this would be: > > 1) Job matching: Potential employers define their "job posting" as a > documents along with complex boolean expressions used to narrow potential > candidates. Job searchers upload their "profile" and may formulate complex > queries when executing a search. Once a is search initiated from any of the > sides constraints need to satisfied both ways. > 2) Advertising: Publishers define constraints on the type of advertisers/ads > they are willing to show in their sites. On the other hand, advertisers > define constraints (typically at the campaign level) on publisher sites they > want their ads to show at as well as on the user audiences they are targeting > to. While some attribute values are known at definition time, others are only > instantiated once the user visits a given page which triggers a matching > request that must be satisfied in few milliseconds to select "valid" ads and > then scored based on "relevance". > > So in a matching system a MATCH QUERY is considered to to be a tuple that > consists of a value assignment to attributes/fields (doc) + a boolean > expression (query) that goes against a double index also built on tuples that > simultaneously boolean expressions and associated documents. > > To do this efficiently we need to be able to build indexes on Boolean > expressions (Lucene queries) and retrieve the set of matching expressions > given a doc (typically few attributes with values assigned), which is the > core of what is described in this paper: "Indexing Boolean Expressions" (See > http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/2/vldb09-83.pdf) > > -- J > > > So to effectively resolve the problem of realtime matching one can > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Joe Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/21/2012 12:15 PM, Aayush Kothari wrote: >> >> >> >> >> So if Aayush Kothari is interested in working on this as a Student, all we >> need is a formal mentor (I can be the informal one). >> >> Anyone up for the task? >> >> >> Completely interested in working for and learning about the aforementioned >> subject/project. +1. > This may be related to the work I'm doing with LUCENE-2987 > Basically changing the grammar to accepts conjunctions AND and OR in the > query text. > I would be interested in working with you on some of the details. > > However, I too am not a formal committer. > > -- > Joe Cabrera > eminorlabs.com > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours > Mikhail Khludnev > Lucid Certified > Apache Lucene/Solr Developer > Grid Dynamics >
