[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511332
]
Ryan McKinley commented on SOLR-295:
------------------------------------
I haven't looked at the patch yet. Everything sounds reasonable. I am a bit
reluctant to glob MLT on to the dismax request handler because we keep seeing
the need to glob on more and more. Recent discussions have pointed towards a
'search component' framework. Something that defines a chain of stuff that
could typically happen in a query (dismax+mlt+faceting+faceting on
mlt+collapse+highlighting+...). SOLR-281 is a quick/crude implementation.
something to think about...
> Implementing MoreLikeThis support in DismaxRequestHandler
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-295
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-295
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: search
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Pieter Berkel
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: MoreLikeThis-DismaxRequestHandler_SOLR-295.patch
>
>
> There's nothing too clever about this initial patch to be upload shortly, I
> have simply extracted the MLT code from the StandardRequestHandler and
> inserted it into the DismaxRequestHandler. However, there are some broader
> MLT issues that I'd also like to address in the near future:
> 1) (trivial) No "This response format is experimental" warning when MLT is
> used with StandardRequestHandler (or DismaxRequestHandler). Not really a big
> deal but at least makes developers aware of the possibility of future changes.
> 2) (trivial) "org.apache.solr.common.util.MoreLikeThisParams" should perhaps
> be moved to the more appropriate package "org.apache.solr.common.params".
> 3) (non-trivial) The ability to specify the list of fields that should be
> returned when MLT is invoked from an external handler (i.e.
> StandardRequestHandler). Currently the field list (FL) parameter is
> inherited from the main query but I can envisage cases where it would be
> desirable to specify more or less return fields in the MLT query than the
> main query. One complication is that "mlt.fl" is already used to specify the
> fields used for similarity. Perhaps "mlt.fl" is not the best name for this
> parameter and should be renamed to avoid potential conflict / confusion?
> 4) (fairly-trivial) On a similar note to 3, there is currently no way to
> specify a "start" value for the rows returned when MLT is invoked from an
> external handler (e.g. StandardRequestHandler), it is hard-coded to 0 (i.e.
> the first "mlt.count" documents matched). While I can see the logic in
> naming the parameter "mlt.count", it does seem a little inconsistent and
> perhaps it would be better to rename (or at least alias) it to "mlt.rows" to
> be consistent with the CommonQueryParameters. Note that "mlt.start" is
> fundamentally different to the "mlt.match.offset" parameter as the later
> deals with documents *matching* the initial MLT query while the former deals
> with documents *returned* by the MLT query (hope that makes sense).
> I have created a patch that implemented "mlt.start" (to specify the start
> doc) and added "mlt.rows" that could be used interchangeably with "mlt.count"
> (but I would prefer to remove "mlt.count" altogether), but since it involves
> changing the method definition of MoreLikeThisHelper.getMoreLikeThese(), I
> wanted to get some opinions before submitting it.
> 5) (non-trivial) Interesting Terms - the ability to return interesting term
> information using the "mlt.interestingTerms" parameter when MLT is invoked
> from an external handler. This is perhaps the most useful feature I am
> looking to implement, I can see great benefit in being able to provide a list
> of interesting terms or "keywords" for each document returned in a standard
> or dismax query. Currently this only available from the MLT request handler
> so perhaps the best approach would be to re-factor the "interestingTerms"
> code in MoreLikeThisHandler class and put it somewhere in MoreLikeThisHelper
> so it is available to all handlers? Again, I would appreciate any comments
> or suggestions.
> I've also noted the MLT features suggested by Tristan [
> http://www.nabble.com/MoreLikeThis-with-DisMax-boost-query---functions-tf4047187.html
> ] which could quite possibly be rolled together with the above points -- I'm
> not sure whether is is better to have a single ticket tracking several
> related issues or create invididual tickets for each issue, however will be
> happy to comply with the Solr issue tracking policy on advice from the core
> developers.
> regards,
> Pieter
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
