[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2010?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916492#action_12916492
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-2010:
---------------------------------------
James,
For the two diff. approaches, did you do any testing to get a sense of which
performs better? It seems to me that the recombine one, while overfetching
some, would likely be faster overall b/c it avoids all the extra shard
communication. Of course, it may be the case that for some setups, one works
better than the other. i.e. small sharded systems can afford the second call,
while large systems should avoid the second fan-out/in. Which, of course,
makes me wonder how hard it would be to give people both and let them specify
based on an input parameter or by having two different components derived off
of SpellCheckComponent? Thoughts? In that approach, we could have SCC be
just for single node instances and then the other two inherit from it to
provide users the choice of distributed approaches. Since you have the code
for both already, what do you think?
Otherwise, I've looked at the recombine approach and it seems pretty solid from
a "ready to commit" standpoint.
> Improvements to SpellCheckComponent Collate functionality
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-2010
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2010
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: clients - java, spellchecker
> Affects Versions: 1.4.1
> Environment: Tested against trunk revision 966633
> Reporter: James Dyer
> Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.patch,
> SOLR-2010.patch, SOLR-2010.txt, SOLR-2010_141.patch,
> SOLR-2010_shardRecombineCollations_993538.patch,
> SOLR-2010_shardRecombineCollations_999521.patch,
> SOLR-2010_shardSearchHandler_993538.patch,
> SOLR-2010_shardSearchHandler_999521.patch
>
>
> Improvements to SpellCheckComponent Collate functionality
> Our project requires a better Spell Check Collator. I'm contributing this as
> a patch to get suggestions for improvements and in case there is a broader
> need for these features.
> 1. Only return collations that are guaranteed to result in hits if re-queried
> (applying original fq params also). This is especially helpful when there is
> more than one correction per query. The 1.4 behavior does not verify that a
> particular combination will actually return hits.
> 2. Provide the option to get multiple collation suggestions
> 3. Provide extended collation results including the # of hits re-querying
> will return and a breakdown of each misspelled word and its correction.
> This patch is similar to what is described in SOLR-507 item #1. Also, this
> patch provides a viable workaround for the problem discussed in SOLR-1074. A
> dictionary could be created that combines the terms from the multiple fields.
> The collator then would prune out any spurious suggestions this would cause.
> This patch adds the following spellcheck parameters:
> 1. spellcheck.maxCollationTries - maximum # of collation possibilities to try
> before giving up. Lower values ensure better performance. Higher values may
> be necessary to find a collation that can return results. Default is 0,
> which maintains backwards-compatible behavior (do not check collations).
> 2. spellcheck.maxCollations - maximum # of collations to return. Default is
> 1, which maintains backwards-compatible behavior.
> 3. spellcheck.collateExtendedResult - if true, returns an expanded response
> format detailing collations found. default is false, which maintains
> backwards-compatible behavior. When true, output is like this (in context):
> <lst name="spellcheck">
> <lst name="suggestions">
> <lst name="hopq">
> <int name="numFound">94</int>
> <int name="startOffset">7</int>
> <int name="endOffset">11</int>
> <arr name="suggestion">
> <str>hope</str>
> <str>how</str>
> <str>hope</str>
> <str>chops</str>
> <str>hoped</str>
> etc
> </arr>
> <lst name="faill">
> <int name="numFound">100</int>
> <int name="startOffset">16</int>
> <int name="endOffset">21</int>
> <arr name="suggestion">
> <str>fall</str>
> <str>fails</str>
> <str>fail</str>
> <str>fill</str>
> <str>faith</str>
> <str>all</str>
> etc
> </arr>
> </lst>
> <lst name="collation">
> <str name="collationQuery">Title:(how AND fails)</str>
> <int name="hits">2</int>
> <lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> <str name="hopq">how</str>
> <str name="faill">fails</str>
> </lst>
> </lst>
> <lst name="collation">
> <str name="collationQuery">Title:(hope AND faith)</str>
> <int name="hits">2</int>
> <lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> <str name="hopq">hope</str>
> <str name="faill">faith</str>
> </lst>
> </lst>
> <lst name="collation">
> <str name="collationQuery">Title:(chops AND all)</str>
> <int name="hits">1</int>
> <lst name="misspellingsAndCorrections">
> <str name="hopq">chops</str>
> <str name="faill">all</str>
> </lst>
> </lst>
> </lst>
> </lst>
> In addition, SOLRJ is updated to include
> SpellCheckResponse.getCollatedResults(), which will return the expanded
> Collation format. getCollatedResult(), which returns a single String, is
> retained for backwards-compatibility. Other APIs were not changed but will
> still work provided that spellcheck.collateExtendedResult is false.
> This likely will not return valid results if using Shards. Rather, a more
> robust interaction with the index would be necessary than what exists in
> SpellCheckCollator.collate().
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
