On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> What do you mean "not something I can plug in on top of my original query"?
>
> Do you mean that you can't do it like the more complex example in the class
> you posted earlier in the thread, where you take a linear combination of
> the
> Map
What do you mean "not something I can plug in on top of my original query"?
Do you mean that you can't do it like the more complex example in the class
you posted earlier in the thread, where you take a linear combination of the
Map -based score, and the regular text score?
Another option is to j
Haven't tried it yet but looking at it closer it looks like it's not
something I can plug in on top of my original query. I am definitely happy
using an approximation for the sake of performance but I do need to be able
to have the original results stay the same.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Ja
Great Scott (hah!) - please do report back, even if it just works fine and
you have no more questions, I'd like to know whether this really is
what you were after and actually works for you.
Note that the FieldCache is kinda "magic" - it's lazy (so the first query
will
be slow and you should fire
Thanks Jake! I will test this out and report back soon in case it's helpful
to others. Definitely appreciate the help.
Scott
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM, scott w wrote:
>
> > Example Document:
> > model_1_score = 0.9
> > model_2_score = 0
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:07 PM, scott w wrote:
> Example Document:
> model_1_score = 0.9
> model_2_score = 0.3
> model_3_score = 0.7
>
> I want to be able to pass in the following map at query time:
> {model_1_score=0.4, model_2_score=0.7} and have that map get used as input
> to a custom score f
Hi Jake --
Sorry for the confusion. I have two similar but slightly different use cases
in mind and the example I gave you corresponds to one use case while the
code corresponds to the other slightly more complicated one. Ignore the
original example, and let me restate the one I have in mind so it
Hey Scott,
I'm still not sure I understand what your dynamic boosts are for: they
are the names of fields, right, not terms in the fields? So in terms
of your example { company = microsoft, city = redmond, size = big },
the three possible choices for keys in your map are company, city,
or size,
(Apologies if this message gets sent more than once. I received an error
sending it the first two times so sent directly to Jake but reposting to
group.)
Hi Jake --
Thanks for the feedback.
What I am trying to implement is a way to custom score documents using a
scoring function that takes as inp
Right exactly. I looked into payload initially and realized it wouldn't work
for my use case.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Oops, just reread and realized you wanted query time weights. Payloads are
> an index time thing.
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Grant Ingers
Oops, just reread and realized you wanted query time weights.
Payloads are an index time thing.
On Oct 9, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
If you are trying to add specific term weights to terms in the index
and then incorporate them into scoring, you might benefit from
payloads a
If you are trying to add specific term weights to terms in the index
and then incorporate them into scoring, you might benefit from
payloads and the PayloadTermQuery option. See http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/08/05/getting-started-with-payloads/
-Grant
On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:56 AM
Scott,
To reiterate what Erick and Andrzej's said: calling
IndexReader.document(docId)
in your inner scoring loop is the source of your performance problem -
iterating
over all these stored fields is what is killing you.
To do this a better way, can you try to explain exactly what this Scorer
Thanks for the suggestions Erick. I am using Lucene 2.3. Terms are stored
and given Andrzej's comments in the follow up email sounds like it's not the
stored field issue. I'll keep investigating...
thanks,
Scott
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> I suspect your problem here
Erick Erickson wrote:
I suspect your problem here is the line:
document = indexReader.document( doc );
See the caution in the docs
You could try using lazy loading (so you don't load all
the terms of the document, just those you're interested
in). And I *think* (but it's been a while) that if t
I suspect your problem here is the line:
document = indexReader.document( doc );
See the caution in the docs
You could try using lazy loading (so you don't load all
the terms of the document, just those you're interested
in). And I *think* (but it's been a while) that if the terms
you load are in
Oops, forgot to include the class I mentioned. Here it is:
public class QueryTermBoostingQuery extends CustomScoreQuery {
private Map queryTermWeights;
private float bias;
private IndexReader indexReader;
public QueryTermBoostingQuery( Query q, Map termWeights,
IndexReader indexReader, fl
I am trying to come up with a performant query that will allow me to use a
custom score where the custom score is a sum-product over a set of query
time weights where each weight gets applied only if the query time term
exists in the document . So for example if I have a doc with three fields:
comp
18 matches
Mail list logo
