Oops, forgot to include the class I mentioned. Here it is:
public class QueryTermBoostingQuery extends CustomScoreQuery {
private Map<String, Float> queryTermWeights;
private float bias;
private IndexReader indexReader;
public QueryTermBoostingQuery( Query q, Map<String, Float> termWeights,
IndexReader indexReader, float bias) {
super( q );
this.indexReader = indexReader;
if (bias < 0 || bias > 1) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException( "Bias must be between 0 and 1" );
}
this.bias = bias;
queryTermWeights = termWeights;
}
@Override
public float customScore( int doc, float subQueryScore, float valSrcScore
) {
Document document;
try {
document = indexReader.document( doc );
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new SearchException( e );
}
float termWeightedScore = 0;
for (String field : queryTermWeights.keySet()) {
String docFieldValue = document.get( field );
if (docFieldValue != null) {
Float weight = queryTermWeights.get( field );
if (weight != null) {
termWeightedScore += weight * Float.parseFloat( docFieldValue );
}
}
}
return bias * subQueryScore + (1 - bias) * termWeightedScore;
}
}
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:54 AM, scott w <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am trying to come up with a performant query that will allow me to use a
> custom score where the custom score is a sum-product over a set of query
> time weights where each weight gets applied only if the query time term
> exists in the document . So for example if I have a doc with three fields:
> company=Microsoft, city=Redmond, and size=large, I may want to score that
> document according to the following function: city==Microsoft ? .3 : 0 *
> size ==large ? 0.5 : 0 to get a score of 0.8. Attached is a subclass I have
> tested that implements this with one extra component which is that it allow
> the relevance score to be combined in.
>
> The problem is this custom score is not performant at all. For example, on
> a small index of 5 million documents with 10 weights passed in it does 0.01
> req/sec.
>
> Are there ways to make to compute the same custom score but in a much more
> performant way?
>
> thanks,
> Scott
>
