Please, any one let me know about Wikidata project because I dont know
about this.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM, James Heald wrote:
> +1 with Magnus on years of birth and death
> (but perhaps /only/ years of birth and death, or close surrogates eg years
> of baptism and burial, and inception or publication date for things,
> otherwise the search specificity would become useless with too many other
> 'significant event' dates)
>
> I have found in the last few weeks I have been using the External ID value
> search a lot, from its search-box on the talk page of the main page for a
> property.
>
> I'm finding this works very well, so I wonder whether people think that
> the ability to search for one of these strings directly in the general
> search box would actually add anything, or is the custom search eg via the
> talk-page search box already enough?
>
> -- James.
>
>
>
> On 27/07/2018 12:49, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> Hi, and thanks for working on this!
>>
>> My subjective view:
>> * We don't need P2860/P1433 indexed, at least not at the moment
>> * I would really like dates (mainly, born/died), especially if they work
>> for "greater units", that is, I search for a year and get an item back,
>> even though the statament is month- or day-precise
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:48 PM Stas Malyshev
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Today we are indexing in ElasticSearch almost all string properties
>>> (except a few) and select item properties (P31 and P279). We've been
>>> asked to extend this set and index more item properties
>>> (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199884). We did not do it from the
>>> start because we did not want to add too much data to the index at once,
>>> and wanted to see how the index behaves. To evaluate what this change
>>> would mean, some statistics:
>>>
>>> All usage of item properties in statements is about 231 million uses
>>> (according to sqid tool database). Of those, about 50M uses are
>>> "instance of" which we are already indexing. Another 98M uses belong to
>>> two properties - published in (P1433) and cites (P2860). Leaving about
>>> 86M for the rest of the properties.
>>>
>>> So, if we index all the item properties except P2860 and P1433, we'll be
>>> a little more than doubling the amount of data we're storing for this
>>> field, which seems OK. But if we index those too, we'll be essentially
>>> quadrupling it - which may be OK too, but is bigger jump and one that
>>> may potentially cause some issues.
>>>
>>> So, we have two questions:
>>> 1. Do we want to enable indexing for all item properties? Note that if
>>> you just want to find items with certain statement values, Wikidata
>>> Query Service matches this use case best. It's only in combination with
>>> actual fulltext search where on-wiki search is better.
>>>
>>> 2. Do we need to index P2860 and P1433 at all, and if so, would it be ok
>>> if we omit indexing for now?
>>>
>>> Would be glad to hear thoughts on the matter.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Stas Malyshev
>>> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
--
Regards,
Sushil Dutt
8800911840
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
