lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Scorer api change
Date Tue, 08 Jun 2010 20:18:37 GMT
Wouldn't you get it as well with proposed api?
You would still be able to iterate the doc and at that point call score with
the docid. If you call score() along with iteration, you would still get the
information no?
Making scorer take a docid allows you score any docid in the reader if the
query wants it to. Wouldn't it make it more flexible?

-John

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:

> To compute a score you have to see which of your subqueries did not
> match, which did, and what are the docfreqs/positions for them.
> When iterating, and calling score() only for current doc - parts of
> this data (maybe even all of it, not sure) is already gathered for
> you. If you allow calling score(int doc) - for arbitrary docId, you'll
> have to redo this work.
>
> 2010/6/8 John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Earwin:
> >
> >      I am not sure I understand here, e.g. what si the difference
> between:
> >
> >      float myscorinCode(){
> >          computeMyScore(scorer.score());
> >      }
> >
> >      and
> >
> >       float myscorinCode(){
> >
> computeMyScore(scorer.score(scorer.getDocIdSetIterator().docID());
> >       }
> >
> >       In the case of BQ, when you get a hit, would you still be able to
> call
> > subscorer.score(hit)? Why is the point of iteration important for BQ?
> >
> >       please elaborate.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -John
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with your proposal is that, currently, Lucene uses current
> >> iteration state to compute score.
> >> I.e. it already knows which of SHOULD BQ clauses matched for current
> >> doc, so it's easier to calculate the score.
> >> If you change API to allow scoring arbitrary documents (even those
> >> that didn't match the query at all), you're opening a can of worms :)
> >>
> >> As an alternative, you can try looking at MG4J sources. As far as I
> >> understand, their scoring is decoupled from matching, just like you
> >> (and I bet many more people) want. The matcher is separate, and the
> >> scoring entity accepts current matcher state instead of document id,
> >> so you get the best of both worlds.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:01, John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > re: But Scorer is itself an iterator, so what prevents you from
> calling
> >> > nextDoc and advance on it without score()
> >> >
> >> > Nothing. It is just inefficient to pay the method call overhead just
> to
> >> > overload score.
> >> >
> >> > re: If I were in your shoes, I'd simply provider a Query wrapper. If
> CSQ
> >> > is not good enough I'd just develop my own.
> >> >
> >> > That is what I am doing. I am just proposing the change (see my first
> >> > email)
> >> > as an improvement.
> >> >
> >> > re: Scorer is itself an iterator
> >> >
> >> > yes, that is the current definition. The point of the proposal is to
> >> > make
> >> > this change.
> >> >
> >> > -John
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Well ... I don't know the reason as well and always thought Scorer
and
> >> >> Similarity are confusing.
> >> >>
> >> >> But Scorer is itself an iterator, so what prevents you from calling
> >> >> nextDoc and advance on it without score(). And what would the
> returned
> >> >> DISI do when nextDoc is called, if not delegate to its subs?
> >> >>
> >> >> If I were in your shoes, I'd simply provider a Query wrapper. If CSQ
> >> >> is not good enough I'd just develop my own.
> >> >>
> >> >> But perhaps others think differently?
> >> >>
> >> >> Shai
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Shai:
> >> >> >     I am not sure I understand how changing Similarity would solve
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > problem, wouldn't you need the reader?
> >> >> >     As for PayloadTermQuery, payload is not always the most
> efficient
> >> >> > way of storing such data, especially when number of terms <<
> numdocs.
> >> >> > (I am
> >> >> > not sure accessing the payload when you iterate is a good idea,
but
> >> >> > that is
> >> >> > another discussion)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >     Yes, what I described is exactly a simple CustomScoreQuery
for
> a
> >> >> > special use-case. The problem is also in CustomScoreQuery, where
> >> >> > nextDoc and
> >> >> > advance are calling the sub-scorers as a wrapper. This can be
> avoided
> >> >> > if the
> >> >> > Scorer returns an iterator instead.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >     Separating scoring and doc iteration is a good idea anyway.
I
> >> >> > don't
> >> >> > know the reason to combine them originally.
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > -John
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So wouldn't it make sense to add some method to Similarity? Which
> >> >> > receives the doc Id in question maybe ... just thinking here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Factoring Scorer like you propose would create 3 objects for
> >> >> > scoring/iterating: Scorer (which really becomes an iterator),
> >> >> > Similarity and
> >> >> > CustomScoreFunction ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe you can use CustomScoreQuery? or PayloadTermQuery? depends
> how
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > compute your age decay function (where you pull the data about
the
> >> >> > age of
> >> >> > the document).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Shai
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:41 PM, John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Shai:
> >> >> >     Similarity in many cases is not sufficient for scoring. For
> >> >> > example,
> >> >> > to implement age decaying of a document (very useful for corpuses
> >> >> > like news
> >> >> > or tweets), you want to project the raw tfidf score onto a time
> >> >> > curve, say
> >> >> > f(x), to do this, you'd have a custom scorer that decorates the
> >> >> > underlying
> >> >> > scorer from your say, boolean query:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > public float score(){    return myFunc(innerScorer.score());}
> >> >> >     This is fine, but then you would have to do this as well:
> >> >> > public int nextDoc(){
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >    return innerScorer.nextDoc();}
> >> >> > and also:
> >> >> > public int advance(int target){   return innerScorer.advance();}
> >> >> > The difference here is that nextDoc and advance are called far
more
> >> >> > times as
> >> >> > score. And you are introducing an extra method call for them,
which
> >> >> > is not
> >> >> > insignificant for queries result in large recall sets.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hope this makes sense.
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > -John
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean - Scorer is a DISI itself,
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > the scoring formula is mostly controlled by Similarity.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What will be the benefits of the proposed change?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Shai
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:25 AM, John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi guys:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >     I'd like to make a proposal to change the Scorer class/api
to
> the
> >> >> > following:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > public abstract class Scorer{
> >> >> >    DocIdSetIterator getDocIDSetIterator();
> >> >> >    float score(int docid);
> >> >> > }
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Reasons:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) To build a Scorer from an existing Scorer (e.g. that produces
> raw
> >> >> > scores from tfidf), one would decorate it, and it would introduce
> >> >> > overhead
> >> >> > (in function calls) around nextDoc and advance, even if you just
> want
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > augment the score method which is called much fewer times.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2) The current contract forces scoring on the currentDoc in the
> >> >> > underlying iterator. So once you pass "current", you can no longer
> >> >> > score. In
> >> >> > one of our use-cases, it is very inconvenient.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you think? I can go ahead and open an issue and work on
a
> >> >> > patch
> >> >> > if I get some agreement.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -John
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
> >> Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
> >> ICQ: 104465785
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
> Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
> ICQ: 104465785
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message