[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12657353#action_12657353
]
Andrzej Bialecki commented on LUCENE-1494:
-------------------------------------------
Luke should work with trunk, possibly with only minor patches. Just grab the
luke-0.9.jar and add jars from Lucene trunk on the classpath.
> Additional features for searching for value across multiple fields
> (many-to-one style)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1494
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1494
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Paul Cowan
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-1494-multifield.patch,
> LUCENE-1494-positionincrement.patch
>
>
> This issue is to cover the changes required to do a search across multiple
> fields with the same name in a fashion similar to a many-to-one database.
> Below is my post on java-dev on the topic, which details the changes we need:
> ---
> 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().
> ---
> Patches (x2) to follow shortly
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
