[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794069#action_12794069
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298:
---
{quote}fl=foo is ambiguous... do we mean a function query or the field?...
perhaps if it's a bare field name, then we treat it as a field unless it has
localparams?
fl={!func}foo
{quote}
It is and isn't ambiguous, right? The result should be the same in that the
value for that field is loaded (although I suppose it has implications that it
would now be possible to load non-stored, single valued fields if we treat it
as a function). FWIW, for the sort by function case, I checked to see if it is
a field first, then a function, then puke.
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794076#action_12794076
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298:
---
{quote}I think that the proper approach is to separate the stored fields from
other fields.. perhaps even put it in a separate meta-data section under the
document. But once you do that, again, for the sake of consistency, it would
also be wise not to include these fields/functions in the fl parameter. So
the fl parameter will refer to fields, and another parameter meta will
refer to meta-data values.{quote}
I think they should be inline, as they are just values associated with a
document. I think putting it in some other list is sticking too literally to
what Lucene calls a field, which I don't think Solr has to do that. One could
easily imagine a Solr component that brought in a database or other storage
repository for supplementary fields and it should all be seamless to the
client.
If we step back and think about the use case for this functionality it is that
one wants the output of the function closely associated with the document. I
don't want to have to go look it up in some other list while I am iterating
over my results when all the other values I'm displaying/using are right there
associated with the document. That being said, it could be useful to add an
attribute that indicates it is a generated name, but in reality, that is
inferred by the field name anyway, as in:
{code}
doc
field name=pow(foo,2)64/field
field name=foo8/field
/doc
{code}
I'd even argue that highlighter results should be inline, too, but that is a
different issue and a bigger can of worms since it has a well used API already.
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794081#action_12794081 ] Chris Male commented on SOLR-1298: -- Just a couple of thoughts about the implementation of this: bq. should work with highlighting... this way people don't have to store large text fields if they already have them in another system. I'm not sure if SolrIndexSearcher is the right place for this or not though - perhaps its document() method should stick to just the stored fields? From what I can see the Highlighter pulls documents from the SolrIndexSearcher as well through document() so the patch should already support highlighting. If we move the process away from the SolrIndexSearcher, which I understand the case for, then we need to move all components away from using document(), otherwise the same document could be represented in different ways depending on whether its retrieved via the #document() one time or via whatever way we build. Equally, we need custom components to do the same. I do like the idea of changing to a DocumentMutator which is given a context and is able to add/remove fields. This will then work seamlessly with having the values inline with the documents. Should I go ahead and mockup a patch for something like this? FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794111#action_12794111 ] Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298: --- bq. I'm not sure if SolrIndexSearcher is the right place for this or not though - perhaps its document() method should stick to just the stored fields? Both Chris' patch here and Noble's on SOLR-1566 take the approach of modifying SolrIndexSearcher.doc() for part of the solution. Not saying this is right or wrong, but I think it would be useful to document here the rationale about why not to do it. Is it just b/c that method is expected to do, more or less, what the Lucene IndexSearcher does? FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794250#action_12794250
]
Uri Boness commented on SOLR-1298:
--
{quote}I think they should be inline, as they are just values associated with a
document. I think putting it in some other list is sticking too literally to
what Lucene calls a field, which I don't think Solr has to do that. One could
easily imagine a Solr component that brought in a database or other storage
repository for supplementary fields and it should all be seamless to the
client.{quote}
I definitely agree that one shouldn't see a field in Solr as a field in Lucene.
That said, I think do have a tendency to see a field in Solr as somehow bound
to the Solr schema.
One thing to notice is that eventually we end up with the same discussion
regarding this feature in the context of different issues, let it be
highlighting or field collapsing. In some cases it feel just right to return
the data as a field in a document, in other places it feels right to have as
something else. It is true that when you interact with solr directly (specially
if you do it manually) you certainly know what queries you send, what functions
you request and what you should expect in the result. But from experience, a
lot of times you try to automate things a bit and creating a well structured
and descriptive protocols is the safe way to enable that.
{quote}I don't want to have to go look it up in some other list while I am
iterating over my results when all the other values I'm displaying/using are
right there associated with the document.{quote}
Having a sub-section under each documents still associates it with the
document. The way I see it, It's like OOP... you can have a Person class that
holds all the information of the person it it as primitive fields, or you can
group related data, like address info, int a separate Address class.
{quote}That being said, it could be useful to add an attribute that indicates
it is a generated name{quote}
That's one way to group fields together, but if you're already doing that, then
why not go all the way? If you need to distinguish between generated and
non-generated names, why not make it simpler and just separate the two in a
different list? (To continue the analogies line I started above :-)) it's like
XML, you can have a single level hierarchy were each element defines attributes
to relate it to other elements, but a more suitable solution would just be to
group all related elements under one parent element.
{quote}I'd even argue that highlighter results should be inline, too, but that
is a different issue and a bigger can of worms since it has a well used API
already.{quote}
In some cases it might be (well it just is) more appropriate to have the
highlighting inlined. In other cases it might not be possible, specially with
some of the latest requests to have highlighting functionality available for
arbitrary text loaded from anywhere (which I believe will lead for a
highlighting component/requestHandler that will be independent of the query
component).
{quote}Not saying this is right or wrong, but I think it would be useful to
document here the rationale about why not to do it. Is it just b/c that method
is expected to do, more or less, what the Lucene IndexSearcher does?{quote}
I guess so... I guess SolrIndexSearcher is in fact a Lucene IndexSearcher which
is the source for this association. In some ways I think it's also relates a
bit to the response structure (not directly though, but conceptually)... if the
IndexSearcher represents Lucene and the document contains fields coming from
other sources as well, perhaps this functionality of gathering all these fields
(/metadata ;-)) should be done in a higher level where SolrIndexSearcher just
serves as on field source. The main reason why Chris's patch puts this
functionality in the doc() method of the SolrIndexSearcher is simply because
it's the easiest and the simplest solution right now... and I don't thing
there's nothing wrong with that... simple is good! Even with this solution as
it is, the field sources are still abstracted away in the form of a
FieldValues or DocumentMutator, so architecture-wise I don't see leaving it
as is will compromise anything.
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12794306#action_12794306 ] Noble Paul commented on SOLR-1298: -- Both Chris and me are trying to achieve more or less the same thing. just that SOLR-1566 is a bit more ambitious in scope. @Uri , I would request you to take a look at the patch in SOLR-1566 also . I guess, all of us agree upon the fact that we need a generic way to add non-Lucene fields to a SolrDocument . The fields could be single-valued/multivalued . Say a function returns a Listint should be valid too.(I even say it could even be a NamedList) . This is useful for a lot of usecases. As long as we can achieve this functionality in a performant way, it is fine. Let us converge our efforts and bring this to a resolution ASAP. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789878#action_12789878
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298:
---
Dang, you know it's bad when you wake up in the morning and the first thing
that comes into your head is what the interface should look like for some new
feature in Solr.
Alas, having just finished SOLR-1297, I think we should simply make the fl
parameter be able to parse functions and, if need be, they can be
materialized/executed as they are being retrieved by the Writer (using
SOLR-1650 if implemented).
Thus, the interface for this would be:
{code}
fl=sum(x, y),id,a,b,c,score
{code}
or
{code}
fl=id,sum(x, y),score
{code}
{code}
fl=*,sum(x, y),score
{code}
So, the output would be:
{code}
...
str name=idfoo/str
float name=sum(x,y)40/float
float name=score0.343/float
...
{code}
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789880#action_12789880 ] Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298: --- Chris, could you isolate this particular part of your patch from SOLR-773? FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789879#action_12789879 ] Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1298: --- bq. we should also let search components add extra fields to the document. I think we could handle this via the ResponseBuilder by storing an id, name, value pairing in a map that the ResponseWriter could then consult when it needs it as it's streaming out the results. Tricky part is what to do when there are no ids, I suppose. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789887#action_12789887 ] Chris Male commented on SOLR-1298: -- Hi Grant, I certainly can. I hadn't thought about having a function as an fl parameter value, but that makes alot of sense and I can support that through my work as well. I'll work on extracting the code today and will get a patch here ASAP. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789889#action_12789889
]
Uri Boness commented on SOLR-1298:
--
{quote}
I certainly can. I hadn't thought about having a function as an fl parameter
value, but that makes alot of sense and I can support that through my work as
well. I'll work on extracting the code today and will get a patch here ASAP.
{quote}
As far as I recall the fact the functions are specified in the fl parameter
should still work with the FieldValueSource as it is at the moment. The
registry enables you to register any value for any string key, in this case the
string key is the function.
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789890#action_12789890 ] Uri Boness commented on SOLR-1298: -- Chris, another thing. You might want to update the FieldValueSource solution to work with SOLR-1644 (instead of the request context) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789891#action_12789891 ] Chris Male commented on SOLR-1298: -- Hi Uri, Yup the functions as fl parameters works straight away with the FieldValueSource so no changes required there. I will first chuck up a patch without SOLR-1644 so that it can be immediately reviewed, then I'll dive into how to update it to 1644 and will create another patch then. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789898#action_12789898
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-1298:
A few comments and random thoughts on this feature in general:
- Think scalability... there should be a way to keep things streamable. Some
people will want to retrieve values for many documents (10K, 100K, or their
whole index). But of course there should be a way for a component to simply
add values calculated all at once too.
- For performance, providers of field values should be able to operate on
multiple documents at once. For example, providers may want to sort big blocks
of docids and access in docid order for better performance (important for
anything that accesses the index). A value provider that needs to access
another system would want to send multiple IDs in a batch.
- Field value providers should be given context, including optionally the set
of fields for the current document, and probably the request and response
objects
- Perhaps this should be more generalized in that the value provider be a
document mutator - it should be able to also change or remove other fields. I
believe this would also allow stuff like per-field security. Field value
providers should also be able to add multiple fields - it may not know ahead of
time what extra fields a document has.
- should work with highlighting... this way people don't have to store large
text fields if they already have them in another system.
- keep in mind that some people believe that derived fields (or meta fields)
don't belong in the same place as other stored fields. I think it probably
depends on the exact usecase though.
- I'm not sure if SolrIndexSearcher is the right place for this or not though -
perhaps its document() method should stick to just the stored fields?
- Think about how to name these fields nicer names... perhaps this could even
include the select as ability to rename fields.
One thought: use an optional '=' or use the AS syntax
fl=foo=bar,dist=gdist(10,20,loc) or
fl=foo AS bar, gdist(10,20,loc) AS dist (more familiar to DB people?)
Another option for providing names that would only work with queries/function
queries would be local params:
fl={!key=dist}gdist(10,20,loc)
but that only works for queries so it's not as flexible
- *If* we use the fl syntax for including function queries, then we should
consider providing the ability to use multiple fl params. This will make it
easier for clients who want to tack something on w/o modifying other params.
If we provide multiple fl params, then an alternate way to specify aliases
could be:
fl.dist=gdist(10,20,loc)
- fl=foo is ambiguous... do we mean a function query or the field?... perhaps
if it's a bare field name, then we treat it as a field unless it has
localparams?
fl={!func}foo
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789906#action_12789906 ] Noble Paul commented on SOLR-1298: -- hi Chris, Yonik, did you check out SOLR-1566 ? it is trying to achieve the same thing. It provides both streaming as well as pre-computed fields FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789908#action_12789908
]
Uri Boness commented on SOLR-1298:
--
I like the idea of giving the providing a broader context (document, request,
response). This will also allow them to operate on multiple documents in the
response (whether it's the docset or the doclist).
One thing to take into consideration here is that one you introduce dependency
between the fields, there must be a way to determine the ordering of the
providers (as one provider might depend on fields generated by another
provider).
as for the field AS alias syntax. I think this should be consistent with
the work in SOLR-1351 which is currently based on localparams. Perhaps there
should be a common approach to handle aliases in requests.
I think that the proper approach is to separate the stored fields from other
fields.. perhaps even put it in a separate meta-data section under the
document. But once you do that, again, for the sake of consistency, it would
also be wise *not* to include these fields/functions in the fl parameter. So
the fl parameter will refer to fields, and another parameter meta will
refer to meta-data values.
bq. fl={!func}foo
+1 or even func:foo. Then you can have things like url:url or file:file
path or even db:db alias + field
FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
--
Key: SOLR-1298
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 1.5
Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch
It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as
fields to a document.
Couple of options here:
1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the
document
2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12789909#action_12789909 ] Noble Paul commented on SOLR-1298: -- bq.perhaps even put it in a separate meta-data section under the document This has been discussed earlier. The meta section is not a clean idea. We should put them as normal fields. Instead of inventing a new syntax , let us use the local params syntax. we do not have to try to have any similarity with SQL . FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Assignee: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 Attachments: SOLR-1298-FieldValues.patch, SOLR-1298.patch It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12777946#action_12777946 ] Noble Paul commented on SOLR-1298: -- we should also let search components add extra fields to the document. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12733620#action_12733620 ] Erik Hatcher commented on SOLR-1298: I would only add that we probably don't want to add this to the actual response document returned, but rather attach them to an additional section like highlighting works. Same really for score, actually too, but I digress. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12733621#action_12733621 ] Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-1298: Returning stuff in separate sections is a pain for correlation though. See SOLR-705 for a proposal to add a meta section to documents. FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12733624#action_12733624 ] Andrzej Bialecki commented on SOLR-1298: - Not sure about not adding it - what fields are returned is selectable, right? and it's not possible to obtain this information otherwise. Some time ago I implemented this for a client - it was before SOLR-243, but I used the same idea, i.e. to use a subclass of IndexReader that returns documents with added function fields (and score). FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-1298) FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12733646#action_12733646 ] Erik Hatcher commented on SOLR-1298: SOLR-705 meta it is! Sorry, I had come across that one a while ago and liked it, but forgotten about it. +1 FunctionQuery results as pseudo-fields -- Key: SOLR-1298 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1298 Project: Solr Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Grant Ingersoll Priority: Minor Fix For: 1.5 It would be helpful if the results of FunctionQueries could be added as fields to a document. Couple of options here: 1. Run FunctionQuery as part of relevance score and add that piece to the document 2. Run the function (not really a query) during Document/Field retrieval -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
