[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10023?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17377413#comment-17377413
]
Michael Gibney commented on LUCENE-10023:
-----------------------------------------
In contrast to "naive word cloud" faceting, the more compelling use cases for
multi-token post-analysis DocValues tend to be specialized cases, with inherent
limitations on the number of tokens. A couple of comments on related issues
mention {{path_tokenizer}} in Elasticsearch (see [this
comment|https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/12394#issuecomment-199555310],
and [this
comment|https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/18064#issuecomment-232297988]).
My own use case has to do with fields that are in a sense single-valued, but
with TokenFilters that may produce expanded "synonym"-style mappings (really
broader/narrower/related/hierarchical entities).
And fwiw, I would argue that there are legitimate use cases even for the "naive
word cloud" approach -- text corpus analytics, etc.
I realize that it would be possible to do this work external to Lucene; but to
me it felt cleanest to add it here, at least to have something concrete for
seeding discussion. The PR initially includes only a trivial test demonstrating
the new behavior; more tests can be added if there's a decision to further
pursue this approach.
> Multi-token post-analysis DocValues
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10023
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10023
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael Gibney
> Priority: Major
>
> The single-token case for post-analysis DocValues is accounted for by
> {{Analyzer.normalize(...)}} (and formerly {{MultiTermAwareComponent}}); but
> there are cases where it would be desirable to have post-analysis DocValues
> based on multi-token fields.
> The main use cases that I can think of are variants of faceting/terms
> aggregation. I understand that this could be viewed as "trappy" for the naive
> "Moby Dick word cloud" case; but:
> # I think this can be supported fairly cleanly in Lucene
> # Explicit user configuration of this option would help prevent people
> shooting themselves in the foot
> # The current situation is arguably "trappy" as well; it just offloads the
> trappiness onto Lucene-external workarounds for systems/users that want to
> support this kind of behavior
> # Integrating this functionality directly in Lucene would afford consistency
> guarantees that present opportunities for future optimizations (e.g., shared
> Terms dictionary between indexed terms and DocValues).
> This issue proposes adding support for multi-token post-analysis DocValues
> directly to {{IndexingChain}}. The initial proposal involves extending the
> API to include {{IndexableFieldType.tokenDocValuesType()}} (in addition to
> existing {{IndexableFieldType.docValuesType()}}).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
