lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: FuzzyQuery vs SlowFuzsyQuery docs? -- was: Re: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2667) Fix FuzzyQuery's defaults, so its fast.
Date Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:30:55 GMT
Just use SlowFuzzyQuery from contrib, I really don’t understand where the issue is? The code
is available in the sandbox/query module and is available in Lucene 4.0. There is no reason
to complain here, we did not remove functionality.

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

 

From: mbennett.ideaeng@gmail.com [mailto:mbennett.ideaeng@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Bennett
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:18 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FuzzyQuery vs SlowFuzsyQuery docs? -- was: Re: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2667)
Fix FuzzyQuery's defaults, so its fast.

 

Hi guys,

Not expecting to change minds, but found Robert's last email helpful, so wanted to try one
more round.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

...
This is some analysis chain configuration issue.

 

Interesting, so you would expect that the seed term *would* go through analysis before it
finds the variants in the index?  If it's supposed to work that way then I can recheck my
config.  (it wasn't just lowercase, that was just an example)
 

If it doesn't work with 100M documents, i don't want it in lucene.

 

Ah, this is very illuminating.  For scalability, big data, etc, that certainly makes sense.

But there are many important Intranet search applications that have far less than 100M docs,
but still need the fine-grained control of solr/lucene.  Intranet projects in the 35k to 2M
doc range often have even more precise indexing, filtering and faceting requirements, and
solr/lucene provides that fine blade.

Wouldn't it be more constructive to pick some number, say 100M, and give that the "big data"
moniker.  Then, perhaps for things are not that scalable, have some separate area/label but
still retain them.  Discarding all use cases < 100M seems draconian.

 


I would have the same opinion if someone wanted unscalable solutions
for scoring w/ language models (e.g. not happy with smoothing for
unknown probabilities), or if someone claimed that spatial queries
should do slow things because they don't currently support
interplanetary distances, and so on.


On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Mark Bennett <mbennett@ideaeng.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I acknowledge your "-1" vote, and I'm guessing that your objection is maybe
> 70% "scalability", and only 30% use-case?
>
> The older Levenstein stuff has been around for a long time, scalable or not,
> and already in real systems.
>
> You seem to have a very "binary" on code being "in" or "out".  Is there any
> room in your world-view of code for "gray code", unsupported, incubator,
> what-have-you?  Maybe analagous to people who jailbreak their iPhones or
> something?
>
> You're an important part of the community, and working at Lucid, etc., and
> clearly concerned about software quality.  When smart folks like you have
> such sharp opinions I do try to ponder them against my own circumstances.
>
> And on the quality of the old code, was it just the scalability, or were
> there other concerns such as stability, coding style, or possibly
> inconsistent results?
>
> Isn't the sandbox and admonished reference in Java docs sufficient?
>
> I'm harping on this because I'm really between a rock and hard place, and
> also posted another question.
>
> Just trying to understand your very strong opinions, and I thank you for
> your patience in this matter.  This issue is either going to fix or break my
> weekend / next-deliverble.
>
> Sincere thanks,
> Mark
>
>
> --
> Mark Bennett / New Idea Engineering, Inc. / mbennett@ideaeng.com
> Direct: 408-733-0387 / Main: 866-IDEA-ENG / Cell: 408-829-6513
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm -1 for having unscalable shit in lucene's core. This query should
>> have never been added.
>>
>> I don't care if a few people complain because they aren't using
>> lowercasefilter or some other insanity. Fix your analysis chain. I
>> don't have any sympathy.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jack Krupansky <jack@basetechnology.com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for permitting a choice of fuzzy query implementation.
>> >
>> > I agree that we want a super-fast fuzzy query for simple variations, but
>> > I
>> > also agree that we should have the option to trade off speed for
>> > function.
>> >
>> > But I am also sympathetic to assuring that any core Lucene features be
>> > as
>> > performant as possible.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, if there was a single fuzzy query implementation that did
>> > everything for everybody all of the time, that would be the way to go,
>> > but
>> > if choices need to be made to satisfy competing goals, we should support
>> > going that route.
>> >
>> > -- Jack Krupansky
>> >
>> > From: Mark Bennett
>> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:48 PM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: FuzzyQuery vs SlowFuzsyQuery docs? -- was: Re: [jira]
>> > [Commented] (LUCENE-2667) Fix FuzzyQuery's defaults, so its fast.
>> >
>> > Hi Robert,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >> ... I'm strongly against having this
>> >> unscalable garbage in lucene's core.
>> >>
>> >> There is no use case for ed > 2, thats just crazy.
>> >
>> >
>> > I promise you there ARE use cases for edit distances > 2, especially
>> > with
>> > longer words.  Due to NDA I can't go into details.
>> >
>> > Also ed>2 can be useful when COMBINING that low-quality part of the
>> > search
>> > with other sub-queries, or additional business rules.  Maybe instead of
>> > boiling an ocean this lets you just boil the sea.  ;-)
>> >
>> > I won't comment on the quality of the older Levenstein code, or the
>> > likely
>> > very slow performance, nor where the code should live, etc.
>> >
>> > But your statement about "no use case for ed > 2" is simply not true.
>> > (whether you'd agree with any of them or not is certainly another
>> > matter)
>> >
>> > I understand your concerns about not having it be the default.  (or
>> > maybe
>> > having a giant warning message or something, whatever)
>> >
>> >> --
>> >> lucidworks.com
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>

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

 


Mime
View raw message