ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Text queries/indexes (GridLuceneIndex, @QueryTextFiled)
Date Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:50:18 GMT
Hello!

I have a hunch that we are trying to build Apache Solr (or Solr Cloud) into
Apache Ignite. I think that's a lot of effort that is not very justified.

I don't think we should try to implement sorting in Apache Ignite, because
it is a lot of work, and a lot of code in our code base which we don't
really want.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


пт, 22 нояб. 2019 г. в 20:59, Yuriy Shuliga <shuliga@gmail.com>:

> Dear Igniters,
>
> The first part of TextQuery improvement - a result limit - was developed
> and merged.
> Now we have to develop most important functionality here - proper sorting
> of Lucene index response and correct reducing of them for distributed
> queries.
>
> *There are two Lucene based aspects*
>
> 1. In case of using no sorting fields, the documents in response are still
> ordered by relevance.
> Actually this is ScoreDoc.score value.
> In order to reduce the distributed results correctly, the score should be
> passed with response.
>
> 2. When sorting by conventional fields, then Lucene should have these
> fields properly indexed and
> corresponding  Sort object should be applied to Lucene's search call.
> In order to mark those fields a new annotation like '@SortField' may be
> introduced.
>
> *Reducing on Ignite *
>
> The obvious point of distributed response reduction is class
> GridCacheDistributedQueryFuture.
> Though, @Ivan Pavlukhin mentioned class with similar functionality:
> ReduceIndexSorted
> What I see here, that it is tangled with H2 related classes (
> org.h2.result.Row) and might not be unified with TextQuery reduction.
>
> Still need a support here.
>
> Overall, the goal of this letter is to initiate discussion on TextQuery
> Sorting implementation and come closer to ticket creation.
>
> BR,
> Yuriy Shuliha
>
> вт, 22 жовт. 2019 о 13:31 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> пише:
>
> > Hi Dmitry, Yuriy.
> >
> > I've found GridCacheQueryFutureAdapter has newly added AtomicInteger
> > 'total' field and 'limit; field as primitive int.
> >
> > Both fields are used inside synchronized block only.
> > So, we can make both private and downgrade AtomicInteger to primitive
> int.
> >
> > Most likely, these fields can be replaced with one field.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:01 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrey,
> > >
> > > I've checked this ticket comments, and there is a TC Bot visa (with no
> > > blockers).
> > >
> > > Do you have any concerns related to this patch?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >
> > > чт, 17 окт. 2019 г. в 16:43, Yuriy Shuliga <shuliga@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >>   Andrey,
> > >>
> > >> Per you request, I created ticket
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12291   linked to
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/IGNITE/issues/IGNITE-12189
> > >>
> > >> Could you please proceed with PR merge ?
> > >>
> > >> BR,
> > >> Yuriy Shuliha
> > >>
> > >> ср, 9 жовт. 2019 о 12:52 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >
> > >> пише:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Yuri,
> > >> >
> > >> > To get access to TC Bot you should register as TeamCity user [1], if
> > you
> > >> > didn't do this already.
> > >> > Then you will be able to authorize on Ignite TC Bot page with same
> > >> > credentials.
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/registerUser.html
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:10 PM Yuriy Shuliga <shuliga@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Andrew,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I have corrected PR according to your notes. Please review.
> > >> >> What will be the next steps in order to merge in?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Y.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> чт, 3 жовт. 2019 о 17:47 Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> пише:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Yuri,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I've done with review.
> > >> >> > No crime found, but trivial compatibility bug.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:54 PM Yuriy Shuliga <shuliga@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Denis,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Thank you for your attention to this.
> > >> >> > > as for now, the
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12189
> > >> >> > ticket
> > >> >> > > is still pending review.
> > >> >> > > Do we have a chance to move it forward somehow?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > BR,
> > >> >> > > Yuriy Shuliha
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > пн, 30 вер. 2019 о 23:35 Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> пише:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I've seen you opening a pull-request with the first changes:
> > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12189
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Alex Scherbakov and Ivan are you the right guys to do the
> > review?
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > -
> > >> >> > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:48 AM Павлухин Иван <
> > >> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Thank you for providing details! Quite interesting.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Yes, we already have support of distributed limit and
> merging
> > >> >> sorted
> > >> >> > > > > subresults for SQL queries. E.g. ReduceIndexSorted and
> > >> >> > > > > MergeStreamIterator are used for merging sorted streams.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Could you please also clarify about score/relevance? Is it
> > >> >> provided
> > >> >> > by
> > >> >> > > > > Lucene engine for each query result? I am thinking how to
> do
> > >> >> sorted
> > >> >> > > > > merge properly in this case.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > ср, 25 сент. 2019 г. в 18:56, Yuriy Shuliga <
> > shuliga@gmail.com
> > >> >:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Thank you for interesting question!
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Text searches (or full text searches) are mostly
> > >> human-oriented.
> > >> >> > And
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > point of user's interest is topmost part of response.
> > >> >> > > > > > Then user can read it, evaluate and use the given records
> > for
> > >> >> > further
> > >> >> > > > > > purposes.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Particularly in our case, we use Ignite for operations
> with
> > >> >> > financial
> > >> >> > > > > data,
> > >> >> > > > > > and there lots of text stuff like assets names, fin.
> > >> >> instruments,
> > >> >> > > > > companies
> > >> >> > > > > > etc.
> > >> >> > > > > > In order to operate with this quickly and reliably, users
> > >> used
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > work
> > >> >> > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > text search, type-ahead completions, suggestions.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > For this purposes we are indexing particular string data
> in
> > >> >> > separate
> > >> >> > > > > caches.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Sorting capabilities and response size limitations are
> very
> > >> >> > important
> > >> >> > > > > > there. As our API have to provide most relevant
> information
> > >> in
> > >> >> view
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > limited size.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Now let me comment some Ignite/Lucene perspective.
> > >> >> > > > > > Actually Ignite queries and Lucene returns
> > >> *TopDocs.scoresDocs
> > >> >> > > *already
> > >> >> > > > > > sorted by *score *(relevance). So most relevant documents
> > >> are on
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > top.
> > >> >> > > > > > And currently distributed queries responses from
> different
> > >> nodes
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > > > > merged
> > >> >> > > > > > into final query cursor queue in arbitrary way.
> > >> >> > > > > > So in fact we already have the score order ruined here.
> > Also
> > >> >> Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > requests all possible documents from Lucene that is
> > redundant
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > > > > good
> > >> >> > > > > > for performance.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > I'm implementing *limit* parameter to be part of
> *TextQuery
> > >> *and
> > >> >> > have
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > notice that we still have to add sorting for text queries
> > >> >> > processing
> > >> >> > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > order to have applicable results.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > *Limit* parameter itself should improve the part of
> issues
> > >> from
> > >> >> > > above,
> > >> >> > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > definitely, sorting by document score at least  should be
> > >> >> > implemented
> > >> >> > > > > along
> > >> >> > > > > > with limit.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > This is a pretty short commentary if you still have any
> > >> >> questions,
> > >> >> > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > ask, do not hesitate)
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > BR,
> > >> >> > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > чт, 19 вер. 2019 о 11:38 Павлухин Иван <
> > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >> >> пише:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Greatly appreciate your interest.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Could you please elaborate a little bit about sorting?
> > What
> > >> >> tasks
> > >> >> > > > does
> > >> >> > > > > > > it help to solve and how? It would be great to provide
> an
> > >> >> > example.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > ср, 18 сент. 2019 г. в 09:39, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com>:
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > I like the idea of throwing an exception for enabled
> > text
> > >> >> > queries
> > >> >> > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > persistent caches.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Also I'm fine with proposed limit for unsorted
> > searches.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Yury, please proceed with ticket creation.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 17 сент. 2019 г., 22:06 Denis Magda <
> > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I see nothing wrong with Yury's proposal in regards
> > >> >> full-text
> > >> >> > > > > search
> > >> >> > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > evolution as long as Yury is ready to push it
> > forward.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for the in-memory mode only, it makes total
> sense
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > in-memory
> > >> >> > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > grid deployments when Ignite caches data of an
> > >> underlying
> > >> >> DB
> > >> >> > > like
> > >> >> > > > > > > Postgres.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As part of the changes, I would simply throw an
> > >> exception
> > >> >> (by
> > >> >> > > > > default)
> > >> >> > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the one attempts to use text indices with the
> native
> > >> >> > > persistence
> > >> >> > > > > > > enabled.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > If the person is ready to live with that limitation
> > >> that
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> > > > > explicit
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > configuration change is needed to come around the
> > >> >> exception.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:44 AM Yuriy Shuliga <
> > >> >> > > shuliga@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hello to all again,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for important comments and notes given
> > >> below!
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Let me answer and continue the discussion.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (I) Overall needs in Lucene indexing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Alexei has referenced to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5371
> > >> where
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > absence of index persistence was declared as an
> > >> >> obstacle to
> > >> >> > > > > further
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > development.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) This ticket is already closed as not valid.b)
> > >> There
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> > > > > definite
> > >> >> > > > > > > needs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (and in our project as well) in just in-memory
> > >> indexing
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > > > > selected
> > >> >> > > > > > > data.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > We intend to use search capabilities for fetching
> > >> >> limited
> > >> >> > > > amount
> > >> >> > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > records
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that should be used in type-ahead search /
> > >> suggestions.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Not all of the data will be indexed and the are
> no
> > >> need
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > > Lucene
> > >> >> > > > > > > index
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > be persistence. Hope this is a wide pattern of
> > >> >> text-search
> > >> >> > > > usage.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (II) Necessary fixes in current implementation.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) Implementation of correct *limit *(*offset*
> > seems
> > >> to
> > >> >> be
> > >> >> > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > required
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > text-search tasks for now)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I have investigated the data flow for distributed
> > >> text
> > >> >> > > queries.
> > >> >> > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > was
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > simple test prefix query, like 'name'*='ene*'*
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For now each server-node returns all response
> > >> records to
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > client-node
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and it may contain ~thousands, ~hundred thousands
> > >> >> records.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Event if we need only first 10-100. Again, all
> the
> > >> >> results
> > >> >> > > are
> > >> >> > > > > added
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > queue in GridCacheQueryFutureAdapter in arbitrary
> > >> order
> > >> >> by
> > >> >> > > > pages.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I did not find here any means to deliver
> > >> deterministic
> > >> >> > > result.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So implementing limit as part of query and
> > >> >> > > > > (GridCacheQueryRequest)
> > >> >> > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > change the nature of response but will limit load
> > on
> > >> >> nodes
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > networking.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Can we consider to open a ticket for this?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (III) Further extension of Lucene API exposition
> to
> > >> >> Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a) Sorting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The solution for this could be:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Make entities comparable
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Add custom comparator to entity
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Add annotations to mark sorted fields for
> Lucene
> > >> >> indexing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Use comparators when merging responses or
> > reducing
> > >> to
> > >> >> > > desired
> > >> >> > > > > > > limit on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > client node.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Will require full result set to be loaded into
> > >> memory.
> > >> >> > Though
> > >> >> > > > > can be
> > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > for relatively small limits.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > BR,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > пт, 30 серп. 2019 о 10:37 Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > alexey.scherbakoff@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > пише:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Note what one of major blockers for text
> queries
> > is
> > >> >> [1]
> > >> >> > > which
> > >> >> > > > > makes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lucene
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > indexes unusable with persistence and main
> reason
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > > discontinuation.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Probably it's should be addressed first to make
> > >> text
> > >> >> > > queries
> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > valid
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > product feature.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Distributed sorting and advanved querying is
> > indeed
> > >> >> not a
> > >> >> > > > > trivial
> > >> >> > > > > > > task.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Some kind of merging must be implemented on
> query
> > >> >> > > originating
> > >> >> > > > > node.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5371
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > чт, 29 авг. 2019 г. в 23:38, Denis Magda <
> > >> >> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ready to take over the full-text
> > >> search
> > >> >> > > indexes
> > >> >> > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ahead. The primary reason why the community
> > >> wants to
> > >> >> > > > > discontinue
> > >> >> > > > > > > them
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > (and, probable, resurrect later) are the
> > >> limitations
> > >> >> > > listed
> > >> >> > > > > by
> > >> >> > > > > > > Andrey
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > minimal support from the community end.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:29 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > >> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yuriy,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunatelly, there is a plan to
> > discontinue
> > >> >> > > > TextQueries
> > >> >> > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Motivation here is text indexes are not
> > >> >> persistent,
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > transactional
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can't be user together with SQL or inside
> > SQL.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and there is a lack of interest from
> > community
> > >> >> side.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are weclome to take on these issues and
> > >> make
> > >> >> > > > > TextQueries
> > >> >> > > > > > > great.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1,  PageSize can't be used to limit
> > resultset.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Query results return from data node to
> > >> client-side
> > >> >> > > cursor
> > >> >> > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > page-by-page
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > manner and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this parameter is designed control page
> size.
> > >> It
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > > > supposed
> > >> >> > > > > > > query
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > executes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > lazily on server side and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is not excepted full resultset be loaded
> > to
> > >> >> memory
> > >> >> > > on
> > >> >> > > > > server
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > side
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > once, but by pages.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean you found Lucene load entire
> > >> resultset
> > >> >> > into
> > >> >> > > > > memory
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > before
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > page is sent to client?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think a new parameter should be added
> to
> > >> limit
> > >> >> > > > result.
> > >> >> > > > > The
> > >> >> > > > > > > best
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > solution is to use query language commands
> > for
> > >> >> this,
> > >> >> > > e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "LIMIT/OFFSET"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This task doesn't look trivial. Query is
> > >> >> distributed
> > >> >> > > > > operation
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user query will be executed on data nodes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and then results from all nodes should be
> > >> correcly
> > >> >> > > merged
> > >> >> > > > > > > before
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > being
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > returned via client-cursor.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, LIMIT should be applied on every node
> and
> > >> >> then on
> > >> >> > > > merge
> > >> >> > > > > > > phase.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, this may be non-obviuos, limiting
> > results
> > >> >> make
> > >> >> > no
> > >> >> > > > > sence
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > without
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > sorting,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > as there is no guarantee every next query
> run
> > >> will
> > >> >> > > return
> > >> >> > > > > same
> > >> >> > > > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of page reordeing.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, merge phase receive results from
> > >> data
> > >> >> > nodes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > asynchronously
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > messages from different nodes can't be
> > ordered.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a. "tokenize" param name (for
> > @QueryTextFiled)
> > >> >> looks
> > >> >> > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > verbose,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isn't
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > b,c. What about distributed query? How
> > partial
> > >> >> > results
> > >> >> > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > nodes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > merged?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >  Does Lucene allows to configure comparator
> > for
> > >> >> data
> > >> >> > > > > sorting?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What comparator Ignite should choose to
> sort
> > >> >> result
> > >> >> > on
> > >> >> > > > > merge
> > >> >> > > > > > > phase?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For now Lucene engine is not
> configurable
> > at
> > >> >> all.
> > >> >> > > E.g.
> > >> >> > > > > it is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > impossible
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to configure Tokenizer.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think about possible ways to configure
> > >> engine
> > >> >> at
> > >> >> > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > only
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > further to discuss\implement complex
> > features,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > that may depends on engine config.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:17 PM Yuriy
> > Shuliga <
> > >> >> > > > > > > shuliga@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear community,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By starting this chain I'd like to open
> > >> >> discussion
> > >> >> > > that
> > >> >> > > > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > come
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution results in subj. area.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite has indexing capabilities, backed
> up
> > >> by
> > >> >> > > > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > mechanisms,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > including Lucene.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, Lucene 7.5.0 is used (past
> year
> > >> >> > release).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a wide spread and mature
> technology
> > >> that
> > >> >> > > covers
> > >> >> > > > > text
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > search
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > area
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond (e.g. spacial data indexing).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My goal is to *expose more Lucene
> > >> functionality
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > indexing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > query mechanisms for text data*.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's quite simple request at current
> stage.
> > >> It
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > > coming
> > >> >> > > > > > > from our
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > project's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs, but i believe, will be useful for
> a
> > >> lot
> > >> >> more
> > >> >> > > > > people.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's walk through and vote or discuss
> > about
> > >> >> Jira
> > >> >> > > > > tickets for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > them.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.[trivial] Use  dataQuery.getPageSize()
> > to
> > >> >> limit
> > >> >> > > > search
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > response
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > items
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inside GridLuceneIndex.query(). Currently
> > it
> > >> is
> > >> >> > > calling
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IndexSearcher.search(query,
> > >> >> *Integer.MAX_VALUE*) -
> > >> >> > so
> > >> >> > > > > > > basically
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > scored
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > matches will me returned, what we do not
> > >> need in
> > >> >> > most
> > >> >> > > > > cases.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.[simple] Add sorting.  Then more
> capable
> > >> >> search
> > >> >> > > call
> > >> >> > > > > can be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > executed: *IndexSearcher.search(query,
> > count,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sort) *
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Implementation steps:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Introduce boolean *sortField*
> parameter
> > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > *@QueryTextFiled *
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > annotation. If
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *true *the filed will be indexed but not
> > >> >> tokenized.
> > >> >> > > > > Number
> > >> >> > > > > > > types
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > preferred here.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Add *sort* collection to *TextQuery*
> > >> >> > constructor.
> > >> >> > > It
> > >> >> > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > define
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > desired sort fields used for querying.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) Implement Lucene sort usage in
> > >> >> > > > > GridLuceneIndex.query().
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.[moderate] Build complex queries with
> > >> >> > *TextQuery*,
> > >> >> > > > > > > including
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > terms/queries boosting.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *This section for voting only, as
> requires
> > >> more
> > >> >> > > > detailed
> > >> >> > > > > > > work.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > extended if community is interested in
> it.*
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your comments!
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yuriy Shuliha
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Best regards,
> > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message