Thanks, Deigo. I shall followup from the jira..
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
LTR with grouping results in very high latency (3x) even while re-ranking 24
top groups.
How is re-ranking implemented in Solr? Is it expected that it would result
in 3x more query time.
Need clarifications on:
1. How many top groups are actually re-ranked, is it exactly what we pass in
LTR with grouping results in very high latency (3x) even while re-ranking 24
top groups.
How is re-ranking implemented in Solr? Is it expected that it would result
in 3x more query time.
Need clarifications on:
1. How many top groups are actually re-ranked, is it exactly what we pass in
Also, would like to understand what are the ways to optimize for performance
at search time with LTR. Queries with terms (that fetch more results) lead
to very high latency with re-rank query even for reRankDocs=24.
Is there best practices to reduce the latency?
Can fv cache help?
Figured out that offset is used as part of the grouping patch which I applied
(SOLR-8776) :
solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/component/QueryComponent.java
+ if (query instanceof AbstractReRankQuery){
+topNGroups = cmd.getOffset() +
*
"Top K shouldn't start from the "start" parameter, if it does, it is a bug.
"***
1. I clearly see that LTR do re-rank based on the start parameter.
2. When reRankDocs=24, pageSize=24, I still get the second page of results
re-ranked by ltr plugin when I query with start=24.
Alessandro
Between, I have applied the patch on top of solr 7.2.1 and it worked well for
me though the Test Cases were failing, yet to see why.
On another note, LTR with reRankDocs>page_size seems to create issue. For
example, Say my page_size=24 and reRankDocs=48.
For first query with start=0, it returns
Between, I have applied the patch on top of solr 7.2.1 and it worked well for
me though the Test Cases were failing, yet to see why.
On another note, LTR with reRankDocs>page_size seems to create issue. For
example, Say my page_size=24 and reRankDocs=48.
For first query with start=0, it returns
I am facing issue with LTR query not supported with grouping.
I see the patch for this has been raised here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8776
Is it available in solr/master (7.2.2) now?
Looks like this patch is not merged yet.
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from:
Thanks Roopa.
I was expecting that the issue has been fixed in solr 7.0 as per here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8776.
Let me see why it is still not working on solr-ltr-7.2.1
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Hi Roopa & Deigo,
I am facing same issue with grouping. Currently, am on Solr 7.2.1 but still
see that grouping with LTR is not working. Did you apply it as patch or the
latest solr version has the fix already?
Ilay
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from:
Yes, I have tried that too:
But it was throwing error while feature extraction:
"Exception from createWeight for SolrFeature [name=originalLuceneScore,
params={q={!dismax qf=tem_type_all^30.0 ..}${user_query}}] Failed to
parse feature query.
at
I do have the features defined as below for field specific (title..) matching
etc:
features: [
{
name: "productNewness",
class: "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature",
params: {
q: "{!func}recip( ms(NOW,launchdate_pl), 3.16e-11, 1, 1)"
},
store: "myFeatureStoreDemo",
},
{
name:
solr/collection/select?fl=id,score,[features+store=myFeatureStore+efi.user_query='black
shoes']=json=id:"13245336"=on
When we fire this query during feature extraction, the originalScore feature
gets the score of the "id" match but not the actual user query which is in
this case 'black shoes'.
Also, when I want to add phrase match as a feature as below, it does not
support it:
{
"store" : "tsf",
"name" : "productTitleMatchGuestQuery",
"class" : "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature",
"params" : { "q" : "{!dismax qf=p_title^1.0}${user_query}" }
},
{
"store" :
Thanks Diego for the pointers..will check.
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Yes, that works. Thanks.
-
--Ilay
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Hi
I want to change autocomplete implementation for our search. Current I have a
suggest field whose definition in schema.xml is as below:
field name=suggest type=edgytext indexed=true stored=true
required=true omitNorms=false/
fieldType name=edgytext class=solr.TextField
18 matches
Mail list logo