Hi Guilherme,
Have you tried reindexing the documents and compare the results? No issues
if you cannot do that - let's try something else. I was going through the
whole mail and your files. You had said:
As soon as I add dbId or stId (regardless the boost, 1.0 or 100.0), then I
> don't get anything (which make sense).
Why did you think that not getting anything when you add dbId made sense?
Asking because I may be missing something here.
Also, what is the purpose of so many qf's? Going through your documents and
config files, I found that your dbId's are string of numbers and I don't
think you want to find your query terms in dbId, right?
Do you want to boost the score by the values in dbId?
Your qf of dbId^100 boosts documents containing terms in q by 100x. Since
your terms don't match with the values in dbId for any document, the score
produced by this scoring is 0. 100x or 1x of 0 is still 0.
I still need to see how this scoring gets added up in edismax parser but do
reevaluate the usage of these qfs. Same goes for other qf boosts. :)
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 12:23, Guilherme Viteri wrote:
> Hi Paras
> No worries.
> No I didn’t find anything. This is annoying now...
> Yes! They do contain dbId. Absolutely all my docs contains dbId and it is
> actually my key, if you check again the schema.xml
>
> Cheers
> Guilherme
>
> On 15 Nov 2019, at 05:37, Paras Lehana wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guilherme,
>
> I was a bit busy for the past few days and couldn't read your mail. So,
> did you find anything? Anyways, as I had expected, the culprit is
> definitely among the qfs. Do the documents in concern contain dbId? I
> suggest you to cross check the fields in your document with those impacting
> the result in qf.
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 16:14, Guilherme Viteri wrote:
>
>> What I can't understand is:
>> I search for the exact term - "Immunoregulatory interactions between a
>> Lymphoid *and a* non-Lymphoid cell" and If i search "I search for the
>> exact term - Immunoregulatory interactions between a Lymphoid *and
>> *non-Lymphoid
>> cell" then it works
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2019, at 12:24, Guilherme Viteri wrote:
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Removing stopwords is another story. I'm curious to find the reason
>> assuming that you keep on using stopwords. In some cases, stopwords are
>> really necessary.
>>
>> Yes. It always make sense the way we've been using.
>>
>> If q.alt is giving you responses, it's confirmed that your stopwords
>> filter
>> is working as expected. The problem definitely lies in the configuration
>> of
>> edismax.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>> *Let me explain again:* In your solrconfig.xml, look at your /search
>>
>> Ok, using q now, removed all qf, performed the search and I got 23
>> results, and the one I really want, on the top.
>> As soon as I add dbId or stId (regardless the boost, 1.0 or 100.0), then
>> I don't get anything (which make sense). However if I query name_exact, I
>> get the 23 results again, and unfortunately if I query stId^1.0
>> name_exact^10.0 I still don't get any results.
>>
>> In summary
>> - without qf - 23 results
>> - dbId - 0 results
>> - name_exact - 16 results
>> - name - 23 results
>> - dbId^1.0
>> name_exact^10.0 - 0 results
>> - 0 results if any other, stId, dbId (key) is added on top of the
>> name(name_exact, etc).
>>
>> Definitely lost here! :-/
>>
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2019, at 07:59, Paras Lehana
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> So I don't think removing it completely is the way to go from the scenario
>>
>> we have
>>
>>
>>
>> Removing stopwords is another story. I'm curious to find the reason
>> assuming that you keep on using stopwords. In some cases, stopwords are
>> really necessary.
>>
>>
>> Quite a considerable increase
>>
>>
>> If q.alt is giving you responses, it's confirmed that your stopwords
>> filter
>> is working as expected. The problem definitely lies in the configuration
>> of
>> edismax.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sorry but I didn't understand what do you want me to do exactly with
>> the lst (??) and qf and bf.
>>
>>
>>
>> What combinations did you try? I was referring to the field-level boosting
>> you have applied in edismax config.
>>
>> *Let me explain again:* In your solrconfig.xml, look at your /search
>> request handler. There are many qf and some bq boosts. I want you to
>> remove
>> all of these, check response again (with q now) and keep on adding them
>> again (one by one) while looking for when the numFound drastically
>> changes.
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 23:47, David Hastings > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> I use 3 word shingles with stopwords for my MLT ML trainer that worked
>> pretty well for such a solution, but for a full index the size became
>> prohibitive
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:13 PM Walter Underwood
>> wrote:
>>
>> If we had IDF for phrases, they would be super effective. The 2X weight
>>
>> is
>>
>> a hack that mostly works.
>>
>> Infoseek had phrase IDF and it was a killer algorithm for relevance.
>>
>> wunder
>> Walter Underwood
>> wun...@wunderwood.o
