Re: Indexing Query
You mean you'd like a BooleanQuery.setMaximumNumberShouldMatch() method? Unfortunately that doesn't exist and I can't think of a simple way of doing it. -- Ian. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian. Also, if I have a unigram in the query, and I want to make sure I match only index entries that do not have more than 2 tokens, is there a way to do that too? Thanks On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: Break the query into words then add them as TermQuery instances as optional clauses to a BooleanQuery with a call to setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(2) somewhere along the line. You may want to do some parsing or analysis on the query terms to avoid problems of case matching and the like. -- Ian. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* *Mobile*:+918891509774 *Skype* : deepakgk87 http://myexps.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Indexing Query
Oops, alright, I'll probably look around for a workaround. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: You mean you'd like a BooleanQuery.setMaximumNumberShouldMatch() method? Unfortunately that doesn't exist and I can't think of a simple way of doing it. -- Ian. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian. Also, if I have a unigram in the query, and I want to make sure I match only index entries that do not have more than 2 tokens, is there a way to do that too? Thanks On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: Break the query into words then add them as TermQuery instances as optional clauses to a BooleanQuery with a call to setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(2) somewhere along the line. You may want to do some parsing or analysis on the query terms to avoid problems of case matching and the like. -- Ian. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* *Mobile*:+918891509774 *Skype* : deepakgk87 http://myexps.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* *Mobile*:+918891509774 *Skype* : deepakgk87 http://myexps.blogspot.com
Re: Indexing Query
You could store the length of the field (in terms) in a second field and then add a MUST term to the BooleanQuery which is a RangeQuery with an upper bound that is the maximum length that can match. -- Jack Krupansky On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: You mean you'd like a BooleanQuery.setMaximumNumberShouldMatch() method? Unfortunately that doesn't exist and I can't think of a simple way of doing it. -- Ian. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ian. Also, if I have a unigram in the query, and I want to make sure I match only index entries that do not have more than 2 tokens, is there a way to do that too? Thanks On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: Break the query into words then add them as TermQuery instances as optional clauses to a BooleanQuery with a call to setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(2) somewhere along the line. You may want to do some parsing or analysis on the query terms to avoid problems of case matching and the like. -- Ian. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* *Mobile*:+918891509774 *Skype* : deepakgk87 http://myexps.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Indexing Query
Thanks Ian. Also, if I have a unigram in the query, and I want to make sure I match only index entries that do not have more than 2 tokens, is there a way to do that too? Thanks On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Ian Lea ian@gmail.com wrote: Break the query into words then add them as TermQuery instances as optional clauses to a BooleanQuery with a call to setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(2) somewhere along the line. You may want to do some parsing or analysis on the query terms to avoid problems of case matching and the like. -- Ian. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* *Mobile*:+918891509774 *Skype* : deepakgk87 http://myexps.blogspot.com
Indexing Query
Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan*
Re: Indexing Query
Break the query into words then add them as TermQuery instances as optional clauses to a BooleanQuery with a call to setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(2) somewhere along the line. You may want to do some parsing or analysis on the query terms to avoid problems of case matching and the like. -- Ian. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Deepak Gopalakrishnan dgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I have a rather simple query. I have a list where I have terms like and then my query is more natural language. I want to be able to retrieve matches that has atleast 2 words in common between the query and the index Can you guys suggest a Query Type and a field that I should be using? -- Regards, *Deepak Gopalakrishnan* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
FW: Binary indexing / query efficiency
Resending, I think this got dropped by the list for some reason
-
Hi, was recently looking to incorporate Lucene for a simple
parametric/faceted type search. The documents are very small,
roughly 15 fields of short length (5-15 characters, generally strings
and padded integers). When profiling query performance of our
application, which inserts 1 million documents then
1) filters on 1-3 fields with simple boolean/term matches
2) stores these docids in a BitSet
3) calls IndexSearcher.doc() to retrieve all matching documents (all
fields, 100 - 1,000,000 results per call)
It turns out that 98% of the query time was spent not actually doing the
query, but within the IndexSearcher.doc() call.
My first question is, is there any way to more efficiently get
(all/most) of the fields for a set of documents, other than iterating
and calling doc()?
Additionally, is there any way (or planned feature) to index *binary*
data? Using a profiler, I have determined that String decoding is a
significant performance limiter for my use-case:
90% of the application time is spent in this method:
---
org.apache.lucene.index.FieldsReader.addField(Document, FieldInfo,
boolean, boolean, boolean)
46% of the application time is spent decoding strings (half of the above
addField() time):
---org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInpu
t.readString()
java.lang.String.init(byte[], int, int, String)
java.lang.StringCoding.decode(String, byte[], int, int)
java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(byte[], int, int)
(YJP profiler output available if needed)
String.intern() was my top hot spot, but my patch was accepted and fixed
this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1600. I'm not
familiar enough with the lucene codebase to figure out the above though,
so thought I would ask.
//ideally i'd be able to do add a binary field as such:
doc.add(new Field(f1,new
byte[]{1,2,3,4},Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS));
//then query like:
Query q = new TermQuery(new Term(f1,byte[]{1,2,3,4}))
searcher.search(q,...);
Which would allow me to avoid the Integer - String - Padded String -
String - Integer coding/decoding to index an integer, and avoid Object
- String - Object conversion (which per above is quite expensive).
Thanks for any help!
Regards,
Patrick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
Binary indexing / query efficiency
Hi, was recently looking to incorporate Lucene for a simple
parametric/faceted type search. The documents are very small,
roughly 15 fields of short length (5-15 characters, generally strings
and padded integers). When profiling query performance of our
application, which inserts 1 million documents then
1) filters on 1-3 fields with simple boolean/term matches
2) stores these docids in a BitSet
3) calls IndexSearcher.doc() to retrieve all matching documents (all
fields, 100 - 1,000,000 results per call)
It turns out that 98% of the query time was spent not actually doing the
query, but within the IndexSearcher.doc() call.
My first question is, is there any way to more efficiently get
(all/most) of the fields for a set of documents, other than iterating
and calling doc()?
Additionally, is there any way (or planned feature) to index *binary*
data? Using a profiler, I have determined that String decoding is a
significant performance limiter for my use-case:
90% of the application time is spent in this method:
---
org.apache.lucene.index.FieldsReader.addField(Document, FieldInfo,
boolean, boolean, boolean)
46% of the application time is spent decoding strings (half of the above
addField() time):
---org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInpu
t.readString()
java.lang.String.init(byte[], int, int, String)
java.lang.StringCoding.decode(String, byte[], int, int)
java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(byte[], int, int)
(YJP profiler output available if needed)
String.intern() was my top hot spot, but my patch was accepted and fixed
this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1600. I'm not
familiar enough with the lucene codebase to figure out the above though,
so thought I would ask.
//ideally i'd be able to do add a binary field as such:
doc.add(new Field(f1,new
byte[]{1,2,3,4},Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS));
//then query like:
Query q = new TermQuery(new Term(f1,byte[]{1,2,3,4}))
searcher.search(q,...);
Which would allow me to avoid the Integer - String - Padded String -
String - Integer coding/decoding to index an integer, and avoid Object
- String - Object conversion (which per above is quite expensive).
Thanks for any help!
Regards,
Patrick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Binary indexing / query efficiency
Hi,
It is not a good idea to extract each document. You can be more efficient
by only looking at the fields you are interested in. Depending on the size
of your index, you can try:
String[] codes = FieldCache.DEFAULT.getStrings(indexReader, fieldName);
This returns a string [] with the length being the number of documents in
your index. If you are doing faceted searching, you may want to try:
StringIndex stringIndex = FieldCache.DEFAULT.getStringIndex(indexReader,
fieldName);
The StringIndex class has a lookup array and an order array. The order array
contains a value for each document id, and you can use this value to extract
the string from the lookup array once you are done counting.
Perhaps the Lucene experts can shed light on a better approach.
You may also want to look at SOLR for faceted searching support :). HTH.
Regards,
Khawaja Shams
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Eger, Patrick pe...@automotive.comwrote:
Hi, was recently looking to incorporate Lucene for a simple
parametric/faceted type search. The documents are very small,
roughly 15 fields of short length (5-15 characters, generally strings
and padded integers). When profiling query performance of our
application, which inserts 1 million documents then
1) filters on 1-3 fields with simple boolean/term matches
2) stores these docids in a BitSet
3) calls IndexSearcher.doc() to retrieve all matching documents (all
fields, 100 - 1,000,000 results per call)
It turns out that 98% of the query time was spent not actually doing the
query, but within the IndexSearcher.doc() call.
My first question is, is there any way to more efficiently get
(all/most) of the fields for a set of documents, other than iterating
and calling doc()?
Additionally, is there any way (or planned feature) to index *binary*
data? Using a profiler, I have determined that String decoding is a
significant performance limiter for my use-case:
90% of the application time is spent in this method:
---
org.apache.lucene.index.FieldsReader.addField(Document, FieldInfo,
boolean, boolean, boolean)
46% of the application time is spent decoding strings (half of the above
addField() time):
---org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInpu
t.readString()
java.lang.String.init(byte[], int, int, String)
java.lang.StringCoding.decode(String, byte[], int, int)
java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(byte[], int, int)
(YJP profiler output available if needed)
String.intern() was my top hot spot, but my patch was accepted and fixed
this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1600. I'm not
familiar enough with the lucene codebase to figure out the above though,
so thought I would ask.
//ideally i'd be able to do add a binary field as such:
doc.add(new Field(f1,new
byte[]{1,2,3,4},Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS));
//then query like:
Query q = new TermQuery(new Term(f1,byte[]{1,2,3,4}))
searcher.search(q,...);
Which would allow me to avoid the Integer - String - Padded String -
String - Integer coding/decoding to index an integer, and avoid Object
- String - Object conversion (which per above is quite expensive).
Thanks for any help!
Regards,
Patrick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Binary indexing / query efficiency
you can store binary value?
e.g. with:
Field(String name, byte[] value, Field.Store store)
You could store all your fields as byte[], so you get them back as byte[]. How
you index them is just another problem, but you are having no problems with
speed in your case, leave it as it is.
try simply to create pairs of fields for each field you now have, one Stored
and not indexed and another Indexed and not stored. Or Fields you use for
searching as only indexed, and one big byte[] field where you encode all your
documents (Blob)... if complex, you could try protobuf, thrift...
Anyhow, your idea with byte[] as indexed unit that can be searched unit is
maybe not all that bad, but it does not look like you need it and is not an
easy one to change (I guess).
- Original Message
From: Eger, Patrick pe...@automotive.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 20:12:34
Subject: Binary indexing / query efficiency
Hi, was recently looking to incorporate Lucene for a simple
parametric/faceted type search. The documents are very small,
roughly 15 fields of short length (5-15 characters, generally strings
and padded integers). When profiling query performance of our
application, which inserts 1 million documents then
1) filters on 1-3 fields with simple boolean/term matches
2) stores these docids in a BitSet
3) calls IndexSearcher.doc() to retrieve all matching documents (all
fields, 100 - 1,000,000 results per call)
It turns out that 98% of the query time was spent not actually doing the
query, but within the IndexSearcher.doc() call.
My first question is, is there any way to more efficiently get
(all/most) of the fields for a set of documents, other than iterating
and calling doc()?
Additionally, is there any way (or planned feature) to index *binary*
data? Using a profiler, I have determined that String decoding is a
significant performance limiter for my use-case:
90% of the application time is spent in this method:
---
org.apache.lucene.index.FieldsReader.addField(Document, FieldInfo,
boolean, boolean, boolean)
46% of the application time is spent decoding strings (half of the above
addField() time):
---org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInpu
t.readString()
java.lang.String.(byte[], int, int, String)
java.lang.StringCoding.decode(String, byte[], int, int)
java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(byte[], int, int)
(YJP profiler output available if needed)
String.intern() was my top hot spot, but my patch was accepted and fixed
this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1600. I'm not
familiar enough with the lucene codebase to figure out the above though,
so thought I would ask.
//ideally i'd be able to do add a binary field as such:
doc.add(new Field(f1,new
byte[]{1,2,3,4},Field.Store.YES,Field.Index.NOT_ANALYZED_NO_NORMS));
//then query like:
Query q = new TermQuery(new Term(f1,byte[]{1,2,3,4}))
searcher.search(q,...);
Which would allow me to avoid the Integer - String - Padded String -
String - Integer coding/decoding to index an integer, and avoid Object
- String - Object conversion (which per above is quite expensive).
Thanks for any help!
Regards,
Patrick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
