Hi all,

(All examples below are using Lucene 2.2; if things have changed in later versions please adjust accordingly, though a quick check of the classes involved shows no major changes in trunk)

We have an interesting situation where we are effectively indexing two 'entities' in our system, which share a one-to-many relationship (imagine 'User' and 'Delivery Address' for demonstration purposes). At the moment, we index one Lucene Document per 'many' end, duplicating the 'one' end data, like so:

        userid: 1
        userfirstname: fred
        addresscountry: au
        addressphone: 1234

        userid: 1
        userfirstname: fred
        addresscountry: nz
        addressphone: 5678

        userid: 2
        userfirstname: mary
        addresscountry: au
        addressphone: 5678

(note: 2 Documents indexed for user 1). This is somewhat annoying for us, because when we search in Lucene the results we want back (conceptually) are at the 'user' level, so we have to collapse the results by distinct user id, etc. etc (let alone that it blows out the size of our index enormously). So why do we do it? It would make more sense to use multiple fields:
        userid: 1
        userfirstname: fred
        addresscountry: au
        addressphone: 1234
        addresscountry: nz
        addressphone: 5678

        userid: 2
        userfirstname: mary
        addresscountry: au
        addressphone: 5678

But imagine the search "+addresscountry:au +addressphone:5678". We'd like this to match ONLY Mary, but of course it matches Fred also because he matches both those terms (just for different addresses).

There are two aspects to the approach we've (more or less) got working but I'd like to run them past the group and see if they're worth trying to get them into Lucene proper (if so, I'll create a JIRA issue for them)

1) Use a modified SpanNearQuery. If we assume that country + phone will always be one token, we can rely on the fact that the positions of 'au' and '5678' in Fred's document will be different.

   SpanQuery q1 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("addresscountry", "au"));
   SpanQuery q2 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("addressphone", "5678"));
   SpanQuery snq = new SpanNearQuery(new SpanQuery[]{q1, q2}, 0, false);

the slop of 0 means that we'll only return those where the two terms are in the same position in their respective fields. This works brilliantly, BUT requires a change to SpanNearQuery's constructor (which checks that all the clauses are against the same field). Are people amenable to perhaps adding another constructor to SNQ which doesn't do the check, or subclassing it to do the same (give it a protected non-checking constructor for the subclass to call)?

2) It gets slightly more complicated in the case of variable-length terms. For example, imagine if we had an 'address' field ('123 Smith St') which will result in (1 to n) tokens; slop 0 in a SpanNearQuery won't work here, of course. One thing we've toyed with is the idea of using getPositionIncrementGap -- if we knew that 'address' would be, at most, 20 tokens, we might use a position increment gap of 100, and make the slop factor 50; this works fine for the simple case (yay!), but with a great many addresses-per-user starts to get more complicated, as the gap counts from the last term (so the position sequence for a single value field might be 0, 100, 200, but for the address field it might be 0, 1, 2, 3, 103, 104, 105, 106, 206, 207... so it's going to get out of sync). The simplest option here seems to be changing (or supplementing)
   public int getPositionIncrementGap(String fieldname)
to
   public int getPositionIncrementGap(String fieldname, int currentPos)
so that we can override that to round up to the nearest 100 (or whatever) based on currentPos. The default implementation could just delegate to getPositionIncrementGap().

What do people think? Is this ugly, or worth pursuing? Does anyone have any other, better ideas? I was curious as to whether Hibernate Search deals with this problem, in terms of many-to-one relationships. However, it's actually not clear from the documentation whether it actually DOES or not, so if anyone has insight into that that would be great.

Thanks in advance,

Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to