So, I would end up with ~6 copy fields with ~8 synonym files so that would be about 48 field/synonym combination. Would that be a significant in terms of index size. What would be the best way to measure this?
Custom parser: This would take the file name, field to run the analysis on. This field need not be a copy field which holds data, since we can use this is only for getting the analysis. Get the synonyms for the user query as tokens. Create a edismax query based on the query tokens. Return the score This custom parser would be called in LTR as a scalar feature. I am at the stage I can get the synonyms from the analysis chain, however tokens are individual tokens and not phrases. So, I am stuck at how to construct a correct query based on the synonym tokens and positions. Thank you, Roopa On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Roopa Rao <roop...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, I would end up with ~6 copy fields with ~8 synonym files so that would > be about 48 field/synonym combination. Would that be a significant in terms > of index size. I guess that depends on the thesaurus size, what would be > the best way to measure this? > > Custom parser: > This would take the file name, field to run the analysis on. This field > need not be a copy field which holds data, since we can use this is only > for getting the analysis. > Get the synonyms for the user query as tokens. > Create a edismax query based on the query tokens. > Return the score > > This custom parser would be called in LTR as a scalar feature. > > I am at the stage I can get the synonyms from the analysis chain, however > tokens are individual tokens and not phrases. So, I am stuck at how to > construct a correct query based on the synonym tokens and positions. > > Thank you, > Roopa > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Alessandro Benedetti < > a.benede...@sease.io> wrote: > >> "I can go with the "title" field and have that include the synonyms in >> analysis. Only problem is that the number of fields and number of synonyms >> files are quite a lot (~ 8 synonyms files) due to different weightage and >> type of expansion (exact vs partial) based on these. Hence going with this >> approach would mean creating more fields for all these synonyms >> (synonyms.txt) >> >> So, I am looking to build a custom parser for which I could supply the >> file >> and the field and that would expand the synonyms and return a score. " >> >> Having a binary or scalar feature is completely up to you and the way you >> configure the Solr feature. >> If you have 8 (copy?)fields with same content but different expansion, >> that >> is still ok. >> You can have 8 features, one per type of expansion. >> LTR will take care of the weight to be assigned to those features. >> >> "So, I am looking to build a custom parser for which I could supply the >> file >> and the field and that would expand the synonyms and return a score. "" >> I don't get this , can you elaborate ? >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> ----- >> --------------- >> Alessandro Benedetti >> Search Consultant, R&D Software Engineer, Director >> Sease Ltd. - www.sease.io >> -- >> Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html >> > >
