lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Smiley (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (SOLR-1158) Scoring, "numDocs" should be number after applying filters, not entire index
Date Sun, 10 May 2009 14:14:45 GMT


David Smiley commented on SOLR-1158:

I just realized that not only would numDocs be affected, but so would docFreq.

I have a feeling that it may not be possible to enhance Solr to overcome this improvement
suggestion because of performance constraints.  But I haven't taken a deep look to know this
yet.  I'm curious what other Lucene/Solr experts think.

> Scoring, "numDocs" should be number after applying filters, not entire index
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-1158
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: search
>    Affects Versions: 1.4
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Priority: Minor
> I'd like to put different types of things to search for in my Solr index.  I use a "type"
field to discriminate between these types of things, and my "id" primary key field incorporates
the type (ex: "FooType:53") to ensure uniqueness.  A problem I see with this approach is that
the idf (inverse document frequency) component of the score is based on the entire index and
not the type that I'm querying.  In particular "numDocs" given to the implementation
is the total number of documents in the index.  I think it would be more accurate for numDocs
to be the filtered number of docs.  That is the number of docs after the filter queries are
> The only issue I see with this which may or may not be a problem is that the scores (and
thus potentially result ordering if sorting by score)  would change depending on which filters
are applied.  That could be counter-intuitive in a faceting UI.  Perhaps only a certain filter
or filters could be marked as lowering numDocs for scoring.  Such a configuration choice strikes
me as belonging in the schema.

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

View raw message