Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Boosting newer documents
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOFYJNYcM=Lr63B8Yy=FgwqJUyuF_yBfk0hDMdVwNksGBj7M-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:12:04 +0100
Cc: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B70B13AA-5D42-4234-89A9-EDF628BAFC2E@pooteeweet.org>
References: 
 <CA+ivXSaAynE7Z8n8+58pg=Hd3KBDNGyeNngd0L8=BVYGQDZO+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-0WTAe-kOPZT9DpZ84wr9o5njm1a+NNETbpq0DpGfaK6c1cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <A0D56A8C-2193-46F5-934D-010F68C2D3B5@pooteeweet.org>
 <4EDDDFF3.8090601@liip.ch>
 <CAOFYJNYcM=Lr63B8Yy=FgwqJUyuF_yBfk0hDMdVwNksGBj7M-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org


On Dec 6, 2011, at 13:58 , Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Christian Stocker
> <christian.stocker@liip.ch> wrote:
>> Before we dig more into this: Would this be the correct way? Is this
>> even possible in Jackrabbit without having to change too much? Or is
>> there an easier way to give "newer" Documents more weight than
>> older once?
>=20
> I guess you could achieve the same effect by having a custom indexing
> configuration file [1] that you modify once per day or per week to
> increase the boost for specific node types.
>=20
> However, it seems counterintuitive to have to keep increasing the
> boost either with configuration changes or with a boost function like
> the one you proposed.

yes .. this needs to be a boost that is determined at query time and not =
at index time

> As already suggested by Alex, I'd rather use sorting for this. To
> allow the full text match score to affect the sort order you could use
> just the year, month or week number as the first sort term and let the
> matches within that time period be sorted according to the match
> score.

well sorting by date isnt a good solution at all if you actually also =
care about the score. this is basically reducing lucene to an RDBMS LIKE =
engine.

> Solr has a more complex mechanism for such date-based scoring (see
> [2]), but making something like that work with Jackrabbit probably
> needs quite a bit of work on the search index layer.
>=20
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/IndexingConfiguration
> [2] =
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#How_can_I_boost_the_score_of_=
newer_documents


yes .. maybe its not feasible "just" for this. but imho this is =
currently the biggest gap with Jackrabbit that it doesnt expose more of =
Lucene (for example facetting etc). it would be kind of a pitty to have =
to duplicate the entire data inside another Solr/ElasticSearch instance =
that would be then totally unaware of ACL's and path relations

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org