To avoid passing all combinations to a NearSpansQuery some non trivial changes would be needed in the spans package.
NearSpansUnOrdered (and maybe also NearSpansOrdered) would have to be extended to provide matching Spans when (the Spans of) not all terms/subqueries match. Also, quite likely, it will be necessary add a float getWeight() method to the Spans interface. This value could indicate how many terms/subqueries actually matched, and then be used in SpanScorer to provide a score for the matching document. This weight value would also be useful in other cases, for example to allow different weights in SpanTermQuery. Regards, Paul Elschot On Friday 17 April 2009 12:18:46 Radhalakshmi Sreedharan wrote: > To make the question simple, > > What I need is the following : > If my document field is ( ab,bc,cd,ef) and Search tokens are (ab,bc,cd). > > Given the following : > I should get a hit even if all of the search tokens aren't present > If the tokens are found they should be found within a distance x of each > other ( proximity search) > > I need the percentage match of the search tokens with the document field. > > Currently this is my query : > 1) I form all possible permutation of the search tokens > 2) do a spanNearQuery of each permutation > 3) Do a DisjunctionMaxQuery on the spannearqueries. > > This is how I compute % match : > % match = ( Score by running the query on the document field ) / > ( score by running the query on a document field created out of > search tokens ) > > The numerator gives me the actual score with the search tokens run on the > field. > Denominator gives me the best possible or maximum possible score with the > current search tokens > > For this example << If my document field is ( ab,bc,cd,ef) and Search tokens > are (ab,bc,cd).>> I expect a % match of around 90%. > > However I get a match of only around 50% without a boost. Using a boost > infact reduces my percentage. > > I even overrode the queryNorm method to return a one, still the percentage > did not increase. > > Any suggestions ? > -----Original Message----- > From: Radhalakshmi Sreedharan [mailto:radhalakshm...@infosys.com] > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:37 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Need help : SpanNearQuery > > Hi Steven, > Thanks for your reply. > > I tried out your approach and the problem got solved to an extent but still > it remains. > > The problem is the score reduces quite a bit even now as bc is not found in > the combinations > ( bc,cd) ( bc,ef) and ( ab,bc,cd,ef) etc. > > The boosting infact has a negative impact and reduces the score further :( > > The factor which is affected by boosting is the queryNorm . > > With a boost of 6 - > > 0.015559823 = (MATCH) max of: > 0.015559823 = (MATCH) weight(spanNear([SearchField:cd, SearchField:ef], 10, > false)^6.0 in 0), product of: > 0.07606166 = queryWeight(spanNear([SearchField:cd, SearchField:ef], 10, > false)^6.0), product of: > 6.0 = boost > 0.61370564 = idf(SearchField: cd=1 ef=1) > 0.02065639 = queryNorm > 0.20456855 = (MATCH) fieldWeight(SearchField:spanNear([cd, ef], 10, > false)^6.0 in 0), product of: > 0.33333334 = tf(phraseFreq=0.33333334) > 0.61370564 = idf(SearchField: cd=1 ef=1) > 1.0 = fieldNorm(field=SearchField, doc=0) > > Without a boost - > > 0.07779912 = (MATCH) max of: > 0.07779912 = (MATCH) weight(spanNear([SearchField:cd, SearchField:ef], 10, > false) in 0), product of: > 0.3803083 = queryWeight(spanNear([SearchField:cd, SearchField:ef], 10, > false)), product of: > 0.61370564 = idf(SearchField: cd=1 ef=1) > 0.6196917 = queryNorm > 0.20456855 = (MATCH) fieldWeight(SearchField:spanNear([cd, ef], 10, > false) in 0), product of: > 0.33333334 = tf(phraseFreq=0.33333334) > 0.61370564 = idf(SearchField: cd=1 ef=1) > 1.0 = fieldNorm(field=SearchField, doc=0) > > > Regards, > Radha > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven A Rowe [mailto:sar...@syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:35 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Need help : SpanNearQuery > > Hi Radha, > > On 4/16/2009 at 8:35 AM, Radhalakshmi Sredharan wrote: > > I have a question related to SpanNearQuery. > > > > I need a hit even if there are 2/3 terms found with the span being > > applied for those 2 terms. > > > > Is there any custom implementation in place for this? I checked > > SrndQuery but that also doesn't work. > > > > This is my workaround currently: > > > > 1) For a list of terms ( ab,bc, cd,ef) , make a set like ( ab,bc) > > , ( bc,cd) ( ab,cd) (bc,ef) ( ab,bc,cd) ( ab,bc,cd,ef)..... and so on. > > > > 2) Create a spanNearQuery for each of these terms > > > > 3) Add it to the booleanQuery with a SHOULD clause. > > > > However this approach gives me puzzling scores > > eg If my document has only ( ab,bc,cd) the penalty for the missing ef > > is very high and my score comes down quite a bit. > > Do you know about the scoring documentation on the Lucene site: > <http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_1/scoring.html> ? In particular, see the > link from there to the Searcher.explain() javadocs - this functionality will > help you understand what's happening with your queries. > > I suspect that the penalty is due to fewer sub-queries matching; that is, not > only does (ab,bc,cd,ef) fail to match, but (ab,bc,ef), (ab,cd,ef), (ab,ef) > etc. also fail to match, and since all of these contribute to the final > score, you will see a large drop off if you don't get a full match. > > Instead of putting all of the alternatives together in a single large > disjunction, if you package them such that the shorter alternatives don't > influence the final score when larger ones match, you may get something more > like what you want. I think DisjunctionMaxQuery > <http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_1/api/org/apache/lucene/search/DisjunctionMaxQuery.html>, > along with judicious boosting, will do the trick, e.g.: > > DMQ((ab,bc,cd,ef)^100, > ((ab,bc,cd)^10 (ab,bc,ef)^10 (ab,cd,ef)^10 ...), > ((ab,bc) (ab,cd) (ab,ef) ...)) > > Steve > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** > This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely > for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, > please > notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are > not > to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other > person and > any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has > taken > every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any > damage > you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out > your > own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves > the > right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this > e-mail > address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the > Infosys e-mail system. > ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >
