Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 826F8104A6 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:22:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 96485 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2013 13:18:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 96408 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2013 13:18:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 96286 invoked by uid 99); 7 Nov 2013 13:18:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:18:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mamoabeng@vjoon.com designates 212.60.17.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.60.17.50] (HELO mail.vjoon.com) (212.60.17.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:18:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.vjoon.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAD6464F1C5; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.vjoon.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24536-03; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:17:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.17.193] (unknown [192.168.17.193]) by mail.vjoon.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64E0464F1AB; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:17:37 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2BBC47F9-28D6-4976-B949-70EE9C76CCE8" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: What is the best way to aggregate scores for sets of documents? From: Manuel Amoabeng In-Reply-To: <527B90BE.6080900@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:17:36 +0100 Cc: java-user@lucene.apache.org Message-Id: References: <373BEBAD-4106-46BF-8A6F-C9407B26881E@vjoon.com> <527B90BE.6080900@gmail.com> To: Alan Burlison X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at vjoon.com X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE --Apple-Mail=_2BBC47F9-28D6-4976-B949-70EE9C76CCE8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sounds good, but wouldn't the aggregated scores of documents consisting = of many sub-documents potentially be greater than the scores of docs = with very few sub-documents even if the overall content is equal?=20 =20 Thanks, Manuel On 07.11.2013, at 14:08, Alan Burlison wrote: > On 07/11/2013 10:59, Manuel Amoabeng wrote: >=20 >> Is there are a way to aggregate the scores for logically connected >> ScoreDocs so that the result would be similar to the score a single >> document containing all matched content would have gotten? >=20 > I did something similar by just post-processing the query results, = grouping by the upper-level construct and adding up all the scores for = the sub-documents, then sorting by aggregated score. Crude, but gives = good relevancy in the results. >=20 > --=20 > Alan Burlison > -- >=20 --Apple-Mail=_2BBC47F9-28D6-4976-B949-70EE9C76CCE8--