Thanks for the help. Most of it makes sense to me and I amgoing ahead with query boosting during search instead of index time boosting.
Could just tell me how do we arrive at the correct boost values for a query with multiple fields? My understanding is that this will vary as per the data that is being searched.
My query after boosting would look something like this:
+(i_title:sorting*^6.0 i_description:sorting*^3.5 i_detailedInfo:sorting*^1.5 i_tags:sorting*^1.2) -i_published:false +i_topicsClasses.id:1*
The reason for using high values is that I want to make sure that multiple occurrences of the search string in say field 'i_description' should not be treated as more relevant than a single match in the 'i_title' field.
Do you have some guideline using which I can arrive at the correct boost value in the above scenario?
--Rakesh S
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:15:29 -0500
From: erickerickson@gmail.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boosting Vs Sorting
See below...
unrelated.
Boosting changes how the scoring of documents work. Sorting ignores scoring
and arranges the results lexically. You can *only* sort on fields that are a
single
token. I'm cheating a little here and you can implement your own
sorts, but that's another story.
Maybe this would help. Say you were indexing books and wanted the results
presented to the user by title. You could index a "titlesort" field that had
the
title lowercased and all spaces replaced with underscores. Then, you could
sort the result of all books containing "solar energy" by title. Where's the
score
here? The only relevance score has here is that no book in the result set
will
have a score of 0.
I did, at one point, have to sort by score then sub-sort by title. That is,
present the user with the top scoring documents sub-sorted by title.
This involved using relevancy as the primary sort and sub-sorting by
title. But the problem here is that scores of 0.98374 wouldn't be in the
same bucket as a score of 0.98375. Search the mail archive for
"bucket" and you should see that discussion.
Nopes. Thats the last thing my product manager will want.
Lets take an example to simplify this:
I have fields like title, description, tags. Now when I search for a term
"Indoor Photography" then I would like the results with exact match in
title to be
more important than in description or tags. However, if there is an exact
match in description
then it should be given more preference than the partial match in title.
Going by the points mentioned below and as per one of your posts
(
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200609.mbox/%3CPine.LNX.4.58.0609271134380.32280@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu%3E
)
I understand that I need to specify query time boosting like this:
title:Indoor Photography^2.5 description:Indoor Photography^1.5 tags:
Indoor Photography^1.2That would go some distance towards what you want, but watch the syntax.
You might be better off constructing your own BooleanQuery. The syntax above
would actually parse something like title:Indoor default_field:Photography^
2.5. You
need parentheses. Also think about phrase queries....
Hope this helps
Erick
_________________________________________________________________From: erickerickson@gmail.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boosting Vs Sorting
See below...
On Dec 21, 2007 12:50 PM, Rakesh Shete wrote:
Hi Eric,
Could you just explain how is sorting different from boosting?
I have been trying to figure this out. Going through "Lucene In Action" my
understanding of sorting is that it will kind of second level of ordering
after the query results have been scored (Not sure if the relevance
established
by scoring is lost in this process).
I often think of sorting as being orthogonal to boosting. They're reallyHi Eric,
I don't see how sorting relates to your problem at all....
I have been trying to figure this out. Going through "Lucene In Action" my
understanding of sorting is that it will kind of second level of ordering
after the query results have been scored (Not sure if the relevance
established
by scoring is lost in this process).
unrelated.
Boosting changes how the scoring of documents work. Sorting ignores scoring
and arranges the results lexically. You can *only* sort on fields that are a
single
token. I'm cheating a little here and you can implement your own
sorts, but that's another story.
Maybe this would help. Say you were indexing books and wanted the results
presented to the user by title. You could index a "titlesort" field that had
the
title lowercased and all spaces replaced with underscores. Then, you could
sort the result of all books containing "solar energy" by title. Where's the
score
here? The only relevance score has here is that no book in the result set
will
have a score of 0.
I did, at one point, have to sort by score then sub-sort by title. That is,
present the user with the top scoring documents sub-sorted by title.
This involved using relevancy as the primary sort and sub-sorting by
title. But the problem here is that scores of 0.98374 wouldn't be in the
same bucket as a score of 0.98375. Search the mail archive for
"bucket" and you should see that discussion.
Is it *really* better for your users to see a low-relevance query
that happens to have the exact words in it before a very-high
ranking but not quite exact response?
that happens to have the exact words in it before a very-high
ranking but not quite exact response?
Lets take an example to simplify this:
I have fields like title, description, tags. Now when I search for a term
"Indoor Photography" then I would like the results with exact match in
title to be
more important than in description or tags. However, if there is an exact
match in description
then it should be given more preference than the partial match in title.
Going by the points mentioned below and as per one of your posts
(
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200609.mbox/%3CPine.LNX.4.58.0609271134380.32280@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu%3E
)
I understand that I need to specify query time boosting like this:
title:Indoor Photography^2.5 description:Indoor Photography^1.5 tags:
Indoor Photography^1.2
You might be better off constructing your own BooleanQuery. The syntax above
would actually parse something like title:Indoor default_field:Photography^
2.5. You
need parentheses. Also think about phrase queries....
Hope this helps
Erick
Let me know if this would help my cause.
Thnx for ur time n the valuable info.
--Rakesh S
which is
the DB. I
specifying
to
scoring, my
relevance
have
field3
with
_________________________________________________________________
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
Thnx for ur time n the valuable info.
--Rakesh S
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:53:02 -0500
From: erickerickson@gmail.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boosting Vs Sorting
OK, I'm trying to adjust to a Mac and my keyboard shortcuts sometimes
lead me to send the mail when I didn't intend. Sorry about that...
So, leaving aside how you form your "similar" query, I *think* you
want to form two clauses, your "exact" and your "similar" and
boost them individually, combined in a boolean query.
This will still interleave the results I think. But it's also a valid
question whether this is good or bad. Is it *really* better for your
users to see a low-relevance query that happens to have the exact
words in it before a very-high ranking but not quite exact response?
That, of course it up to your product manager....
If it is really a requirement, it seems to me that you would be able to
just form the two queries independently, then just post-process them.
One query is the exact version, and the second query is the similar one.
Then just combine the results as you please by iterating the hits
object for the exact query then following it by the same for the similar.
I don't see how sorting relates to your problem at all....
Best
Erick
wrote:From: erickerickson@gmail.com
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boosting Vs Sorting
OK, I'm trying to adjust to a Mac and my keyboard shortcuts sometimes
lead me to send the mail when I didn't intend. Sorry about that...
So, leaving aside how you form your "similar" query, I *think* you
want to form two clauses, your "exact" and your "similar" and
boost them individually, combined in a boolean query.
This will still interleave the results I think. But it's also a valid
question whether this is good or bad. Is it *really* better for your
users to see a low-relevance query that happens to have the exact
words in it before a very-high ranking but not quite exact response?
That, of course it up to your product manager....
If it is really a requirement, it seems to me that you would be able to
just form the two queries independently, then just post-process them.
One query is the exact version, and the second query is the similar one.
Then just combine the results as you please by iterating the hits
object for the exact query then following it by the same for the similar.
I don't see how sorting relates to your problem at all....
Best
Erick
On Dec 21, 2007 9:46 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
From my perspective, index-time boosting and sorting are apples
and oranges.
According to a post from Hoss, index-time boosting is a way of
saying that "Field x in this document is more important than
field x in other documents". Query-time boosts are a way of
saying "I care about field X more than field Y across *all*
documents".
So index time boosting doesn't seem to relate to your problem since
you really want to compare field x across all documents. It seems
that query-time boosting is more relevant.
So, leaving aside how you form your "similar" q
On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 PM, Rakesh Shete < rakesh_shete@hotmail.com>
From my perspective, index-time boosting and sorting are apples
and oranges.
According to a post from Hoss, index-time boosting is a way of
saying that "Field x in this document is more important than
field x in other documents". Query-time boosts are a way of
saying "I care about field X more than field Y across *all*
documents".
So index time boosting doesn't seem to relate to your problem since
you really want to compare field x across all documents. It seems
that query-time boosting is more relevant.
So, leaving aside how you form your "similar" q
On Dec 20, 2007 10:50 PM, Rakesh Shete < rakesh_shete@hotmail.com>
Hi all,
I am using Hibernate Search (http://www.hibernate.org/410.html)
I am using Hibernate Search (http://www.hibernate.org/410.html)
a wrapper around Lucene for performing search over info stored in
have questions related to Lucene boosting Vs sorting:
Is index time boosting of documents and fields better than
Is index time boosting of documents and fields better than
sorting parameters at search time?
I have been browsing through the Lucene mail archives for an answer
I have been browsing through the Lucene mail archives for an answer
this. Going through them and reading on stuff related to Lucene
understanding is that if I know upfront at index time that the
order of results is based on certain fields, then, it is better to
index time boosting of documents and fields. Am I right here?
My requirements are like:
Results having an exact match to the input query string should have
highest preference followed by an exact match with field1, field2,
My requirements are like:
Results having an exact match to the input query string should have
highest preference followed by an exact match with field1, field2,
and then followed by search query substring (or near match) match
field1, field2, field3.
Any suggestions are most welcome.
--Rakesh S
_________________________________________________________________
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
Any suggestions are most welcome.
--Rakesh S
_________________________________________________________________
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=219
