I'm still struggling with this.
I've tried to implement the solution mentioned in previous reply, but
unfortunately there is a blocking issue with this:
I cannot find a way to create another index from the source index in a
way that the new index has the field values in it. The only way to copy
document's field values from one to another index is to have stored
fields. But stored fields hold "the original String in its entirety",
and not the analyzed String, which I need. Is there another way to copy
documents with (at least the spellcheck field) from the one to another
index?
Recap:
I have a source index holding documents for different namespaces. These
documents hold one field (analyzed) that should be used for spell
checking. I want to construct an spellchecker index for each namespace
separately. To accomplish this, I first get the list of namespaces (each
document has a namespace field in the original index). Then, for each
namespace, I get the list of documents that match this namespace. Then
I'd like to use this subset to construct a spellchecker index.
Regards,
Elmer
On 11/23/2011 03:28 PM, E. van Chastelet wrote:
I currently have an idea to get it done, but it's not a nice solution.
If we have an index Q with all documents for all namespaces, we first
extract the list of all terms that appear for the field namespace in Q
(this field indicates the namespace of the document).
Then, for each namespace n in the terms list:
- Get all docs from Q that match +namespace:n
- Construct a temporary index from these docs
- Use this temporary index to construct the dictionary, which the
SpellChecker can use as input.
- Call indexDictionary on SpellChecker to create spellcheck index for
current namespace.
- Delete temporary index
We now have separate spell check indexes for each namespace.
Any suggestions for a cleaner solution?
Regards,
Elmer van Chastelet
On 11/10/2011 01:16 PM, E. van Chastelet wrote:
Hi all,
In our project we like to have the ability to get search results
scoped to one 'namespace' (as we call it). This can easily be
achieved by using a filter or just an additional must-clause.
For the spellchecker (and our autocompletion, which is a modified
spellchecker), the story seems different. The spell checker index is
created using a LuceneDictionary, which has a IndexReader as source.
We would like to get (spellcheck/autocomplete) suggestions that are
scoped to one namespace (i.e. field 'namespace' should have a
particular value).
With a single source index containing docs for all namespaces, it
seems not possible to create a spellcheck index for each namespace
the ordinary way.
Q1: Is there a way to construct a LuceneDictionary from a subset of a
single source index (all terms where namespace = %value%) ?
Another, maybe better solution is to customize the spellchecker by
adding an additional namespace field to the spellchecker index. At
query-time, an additional must-clause is added, scoping the
suggestions to one (or more) namespace(s). The advantage of this is
to have a singleton spellchecker (or at least the index reader) for
all namespaces. This also means less open files by our application
(imagine if there are over 1000 namespaces).
Q2: Will there be a significant penalty (say more than 50% slower)
for the additional must-clause at query time?
Q3: Or can you think of a better solution for this problem? :)
How we currently do it: we currently use Lucene 3.1 with Hibernate
Search and we actually already have auto completion and spell
checking scoped to one namespace. This is currently achieved by using
index sharding, so each namespace has its own index and reader, and
another for spell check and auto completion. Unfortunately there are
some downsides to this:
- Our faceting engine has no good support for multiple indexes, so
faceting only works on a single namespace
- Needs administration for mapping namespace identifier (String) to
index number (integer)
- The number of shards (and thus name spaces) is currently hardcoded.
At this moment it is set to 100, and this means Hibernate Search
opens up 100 index readers/writers, while only n<100 are in use. and
therfore:
- Much open file descriptors
- Hard limit on number of namespaces
Therefore it seems better to switch back to having a single index for
all namespaces.
Thanks!
Regards,
Elmer van Chastelet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
