Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E990C33C for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51144 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2014 12:47:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 51075 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2014 12:47:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 51064 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jun 2014 12:47:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:47:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of solrexpert@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.52] (HELO mail-la0-f52.google.com) (209.85.215.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:47:44 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id s18so544378lam.11 for ; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=J1b2WxnVitpxFsqV4qRY8IAejD+QmcL9Ex+K2eo92z4=; b=VZUxVAh6xwm/TuIJCxOj+0AquWThRCUKfmNjV48LZlweS9XbeJ+v4tsNvr116o6a/c 0JnGjr4jiWRmhFKwR5vDR8ry+ckNnbqFfQhWa0yohG4J1x3NCaiB1KQITA6RfhQb/FQI fK3Ya31fQfCHgZaeVfkkFagJaelKz9Nv0LjkQJuXK9jRYv2JvC0Ipyv086QIyTVlmFwT 8/SViHAyqlY1icq+8vaaSQ7v9cV+6Kvyh8OUUD2nU4U/54VwpwiO38Kj7Sr19qfwFWK9 0i5Mzl3AknSuysFed2mphgV9UG2XkaMVGzrAukVMxmhsyWCTWDRiEDZX29bmNBRD8G3N pV5A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.50.241 with SMTP id f17mr43606371lbo.7.1401972440634; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.125.70 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:47:20 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: OOV queries From: Dmitry Kan To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11336b1a4f1c5f04fb1625d8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11336b1a4f1c5f04fb1625d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, Solr is good at caching: even if first "cold" query takes longer time, the subsequent one is much quicker, given that it shares the fq's of the first query. This is more like an idea question: what about the out-of-vocabulary (OOV) queries? According to my quick measurements, they take same amount of time when repeated and return nothing. Most of such queries are usually user typos, so I could imagine implementing a round-trip to the server with an auto-corrected query, if the first query returned 0 hits. This does not solve the underlining slow 0 hits query though. Would it make sense to implement an OOV cache to speed things up? Does one exist already in Lucene / Solr? -- Dmitry Kan Blog: http://dmitrykan.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmitrykan --001a11336b1a4f1c5f04fb1625d8--