Sorry, Peter, I haven't had a chance to work on it. I don't see it
happening this week, but maybe next.
I do think the Mapper approach via TermVectors will work. It will
require implementing a new mapper that orders by position, but I
don't think that is too hard. I started on one on the LUCENE-868
patch (version 4) but it is not complete. Maybe you want to pick
it up?
With this approach, you would iterate your spans, when you come to a
new doc, you would load the term vector using the PositionMapper, and
then you could index into the positions for the matches in the
document.
I realize this does not cover the just wanting to get the Payload at
the match issue. Maybe next week...
Cheers,
Grant
On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Peter Keegan wrote:
> Any idea on when this might be available (days, weeks...)?
>
> Peter
>
> On 7/16/07, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > : Do we have a best practice for going from, say a SpanQuery
doc/
>> > : position information and retrieving the actual range of
>> positions of
>> > : content from the Document? Is it just to reanalyze the
Document
>> > : using the appropriate Analyzer and start recording once you
>> hit the
>> > : positions you are interested in? Seems like Term Vectors
>> _could_
>> > : help, but even my new Mapper approach patch (LUCENE-868)
doesn't
>> > : really help, because they are stored in a term-centric
manner. I
>> > : guess what I am after is a position centric approach. That
>> is, give
>> >
>> > this is kind of what i was suggesting in the last message i sent
>> > to the java-user thread about paylods and SpanQueries (which i'm
>> > guessing is what prompted this thread as well)...
>> >
>> > http://www.nabble.com/Payloads-and-PhraseQuery-
>> > tf3988826.html#a11551628
>>
>>
>> This is one use case, the other is related to the new patch I
>> submitted for LUCENE-960. In this case, I have a SpanQueryFilter
>> that identifies a bunch of docs and positions ahead of time. Then
>> the user enters new Span Query and I want to relate the matches
from
>> the user query with the positions of matches in the filter and
then
>> show that window.
>>
>> >
>> > my point was that currently, to retrieve a payload you need a
>> > TermPositions instance, which is designed for iterating in the
>> > order of...
>> > seek(term)
>> > skipTo(doc)
>> > nextPosition()
>> > getPayload()
>> > ...which is great for getting the payload of every instance
>> > (ie:position) of a specific term in a given document (or in
every
>> > document) but without serious changes to the Spans API, the
ideal
>> > payload
>> > API would let you say...
>> > skipTo(doc)
>> > advance(startPosition)
>> > getPayload()
>> > while (nextPosition() < endPosition)
>> > getPosition()
>> >
>> > but this seems like a nearly impossible API to implement
given the
>> > natore
>> > of hte inverted index and the fact that terms aren't ever
stored in
>> > position order.
>> >
>> > there's a lot i really don't know/understand about the lucene
term
>> > position internals ... but as i recall, the datastructure
written
>> > to disk
>> > isn't actually a tree structure inverted index, it's a long
>> > sequence of
>> > tuples correct? so in theory you could scan along the tuples
>> > untill you
>> > find the doc you are interested in, ignoring all of the term
info
>> > along
>> > the way, then whatever term you happen be on at the moment, you
>> > could scan
>> > along all of the positions until you find one in the range
you are
>> > interested in -- assuming you do, then you record the current
Term
>> > (and
>> > read your payload data if interested)
>>
>> I think the main issue I see is in both the payloads and the
matching
>> case above is that they require a document centric approach. And
>> then, for each Document,
>> you ideally want to be able to just index into an array so that
you
>> can go directly to the position that is needed based on
>> Span.getStart()
>>
>> >
>> > if i remember correctly, the first part of this is easy, and
>> > relative fast
>> > -- i think skipTo(doc) on a TermDoc or TermPositions will
happily
>> > scan for
>> > the first <term,doc> pair with the correct docId,
irregardless of
>> > the term
>> > ... the only thing i'm not sure about is how efficient it is to
>> > loop over
>> > nextPosition() for every term you find to see if any of them
are in
>> > your
>> > range ... the best case scenerio is that the first position
>> > returned is
>> > above the high end of your range, in which case you can stop
>> > immediately
>> > and seek to the next term -- butthe worst case is that you call
>> > nextPosition() over an over a lot of times before you get a
>> > position in
>> > (or above) your rnage .... an advancePosition(pos) that
wokred like
>> > seek
>> > or skipTo might be helpful here.
>> >
>> > : I feel like I am missing something obvious. I would
suspect the
>> > : highlighter needs to do this, but it seems to take the
reanalyze
>> > : approach as well (I admit, though, that I have little
experience
>> > with
>> > : the highlighter.)
>> >
>> > as i understand it the default case is to reanalyze, but if you
>> have
>> > TermFreqVector info stored with positions (ie: a
>> > TermPositionVector) then
>> > it can use that to construct a TokenStream by iterating over all
>> > terms and
>> > writing them into a big array in position order (see the
>> > TermSources class
>> > in the highlighter)
>>
>>
>> Ah, I see that now. Thanks.
>> >
>> > this makes sense when highlighting because it doesn't know what
>> > kind of
>> > fragmenter is going to be used so it needs the whole
TokenStream,
>> > but it
>> > seems less then ideal when you are only interested in a small
>> > number of
>> > position ranges that you know in advance.
>> >
>> > : I am wondering if it would be useful to have an alternative
Term
>> > : Vector storage mechanism that was position centric.
Because we
>> > : couldn't take advantage of the lexicographic compression, it
>> would
>> > : take up more disk space, but it would be a lot faster for
these
>> > kinds
>> >
>> > i'm not sure if it's really neccessary to store the data in a
>> position
>> > centric manner, assuming we have a way to "seek" by position
like i
>> > described above -- but then again i don't really know that
what i
>> > described above is all that possible/practical/performant.
>> >
>>
>> I suppose I could use my Mapper approach to organize things in a
>> position centric way now that I think about it more. Just
means some
>> unpacking and repacking. Still, probably would perform well
enough
>> since I can setup the correct structure on the fly. I will
give this
>> a try. Maybe even add a Mapper to do this.
>>
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
