lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Grant Ingersoll (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (SOLR-2010) Improvements to SpellCheckComponent Collate functionality
Date Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:37:37 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2010?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916492#action_12916492
] 

Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-2010:
---------------------------------------

James,

For the two diff. approaches, did you do any testing to get a sense of which performs better?
 It seems to me that the recombine one, while overfetching some, would likely be faster overall
b/c it avoids all the extra shard communication.  Of course, it may be the case that for some
setups, one works better than the other.  i.e. small sharded systems can afford the second
call, while large systems should avoid the second fan-out/in.  Which, of course, makes me
wonder how hard it would be to give people both and let them specify based on an input parameter
or by having two different components derived off of SpellCheckComponent?   Thoughts?   In
that approach, we could have SCC be just for single node instances and then the other two
inherit from it to provide users the choice of distributed approaches.  Since you have the
code for both already, what do you think?

Otherwise, I've looked at the recombine approach and it seems pretty solid from a "ready to
commit" standpoint.

> Improvements to SpellCheckComponent Collate functionality
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-2010
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2010
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: clients - java, spellchecker
>    Affects Versions: 1.4.1
>         Environment: Tested against trunk revision 966633
>            Reporter: James Dyer
>            Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.patch,
SOLR-2010.txt, SOLR-2010_141.patch, SOLR-2010_shardRecombineCollations_993538.patch, SOLR-2010_shardRecombineCollations_999521.patch,
SOLR-2010_shardSearchHandler_993538.patch, SOLR-2010_shardSearchHandler_999521.patch
>
>
> Improvements to SpellCheckComponent Collate functionality
> Our project requires a better Spell Check Collator.  I'm contributing this as a patch
to get suggestions for improvements and in case there is a broader need for these features.
> 1. Only return collations that are guaranteed to result in hits if re-queried (applying
original fq params also).  This is especially helpful when there is more than one correction
per query.  The 1.4 behavior does not verify that a particular combination will actually return
hits.
> 2. Provide the option to get multiple collation suggestions
> 3. Provide extended collation results including the # of hits re-querying will return
and a breakdown of each misspelled word and its correction.
> This patch is similar to what is described in SOLR-507 item #1.  Also, this patch provides
a viable workaround for the problem discussed in SOLR-1074.  A dictionary could be created
that combines the terms from the multiple fields.  The collator then would prune out any spurious
suggestions this would cause.
> This patch adds the following spellcheck parameters:
> 1. spellcheck.maxCollationTries - maximum # of collation possibilities to try before
giving up.  Lower values ensure better performance.  Higher values may be necessary to find
a collation that can return results.  Default is 0, which maintains backwards-compatible behavior
(do not check collations).
> 2. spellcheck.maxCollations - maximum # of collations to return.  Default is 1, which
maintains backwards-compatible behavior.
> 3. spellcheck.collateExtendedResult - if true, returns an expanded response format detailing
collations found.  default is false, which maintains backwards-compatible behavior.  When
true, output is like this (in context):
> <lst name="spellcheck">
> 	<lst name="suggestions">
> 		<lst name="hopq">
> 			<int name="numFound">94</int>
> 			<int name="startOffset">7</int>
> 			<int name="endOffset">11</int>
> 			<arr name="suggestion">
> 				<str>hope</str>
> 				<str>how</str>
> 				<str>hope</str>
> 				<str>chops</str>
> 				<str>hoped</str>
> 				etc
> 			</arr>
> 		<lst name="faill">
> 			<int name="numFound">100</int>
> 			<int name="startOffset">16</int>
> 			<int name="endOffset">21</int>
> 			<arr name="suggestion">
> 				<str>fall</str>
> 				<str>fails</str>
> 				<str>fail</str>
> 				<str>fill</str>
> 				<str>faith</str>
> 				<str>all</str>
> 				etc
> 			</arr>
> 		</lst>
> 		<lst name="collation">
> 			<str name="collationQuery">Title:(how AND fails)</str>
> 			<int name="hits">2</int>
> 			<lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> 				<str name="hopq">how</str>
> 				<str name="faill">fails</str>
> 			</lst>
> 		</lst>
> 		<lst name="collation">
> 			<str name="collationQuery">Title:(hope AND faith)</str>
> 			<int name="hits">2</int>
> 			<lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> 				<str name="hopq">hope</str>
> 				<str name="faill">faith</str>
> 			</lst>
> 		</lst>
> 		<lst name="collation">
> 			<str name="collationQuery">Title:(chops AND all)</str>
> 			<int name="hits">1</int>
> 			<lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> 				<str name="hopq">chops</str>
> 				<str name="faill">all</str>
> 			</lst>
> 		</lst>
> 	</lst>
> </lst>
> In addition, SOLRJ is updated to include SpellCheckResponse.getCollatedResults(), which
will return the expanded Collation format.  getCollatedResult(), which returns a single String,
is retained for backwards-compatibility.  Other APIs were not changed but will still work
provided that spellcheck.collateExtendedResult is false.
> This likely will not return valid results if using Shards.  Rather, a more robust interaction
with the index would be necessary than what exists in SpellCheckCollator.collate().

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message