Hello Em:
The URL is quite large (w/ shards, ...), maybe it's best if I paste the
relevant parts.
Our "q" parameter is:
"q":"_val_:\"product(query_score,max(query($q8),max(query($q7),max(query($q4),query($q3)))))\"",
The subqueries q8, q7, q4 and q3 are regular queries, for example:
"q7":"stopword_phrase:colomba~1 AND stopword_phrase:santa AND
wildcard_stopword_phrase:car^0.7 AND stopword_phrase:hoteles OR
(stopword_phrase:las AND stopword_phrase:de)"
We've executed the subqueries q3-q8 independently and they're very fast,
but when we introduce the function queries as described below, it all goes
10X slower.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks
Carlos
Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas
CEO, ExperienceOn - New generation search
http://www.experienceon.com
Mobile: +34 652 911 201
Skype: carlosgonzalezcadenas
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlosgonzalezcadenas
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Em <mailformailingli...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hello carlos,
>
> could you show us how your Solr-call looks like?
>
> Regards,
> Em
>
> Am 16.02.2012 14:34, schrieb Carlos Gonzalez-Cadenas:
> > Hello all:
> >
> > We'd like to score the matching documents using a combination of SOLR's
> IR
> > score with another application-specific score that we store within the
> > documents themselves (i.e. a float field containing the app-specific
> > score). In particular, we'd like to calculate the final score doing some
> > operations with both numbers (i.e product, sqrt, ...)
> >
> > According to what we know, there are two ways to do this in SOLR:
> >
> > A) Sort by function [1]: We've tested an expression like
> > "sort=product(score, query_score)" in the SOLR query, where score is the
> > common SOLR IR score and query_score is our own precalculated score, but
> it
> > seems that SOLR can only do this with stored/indexed fields (and
> obviously
> > "score" is not stored/indexed).
> >
> > B) Function queries: We've used _val_ and function queries like max, sqrt
> > and query, and we've obtained the desired results from a functional point
> > of view. However, our index is quite large (400M documents) and the
> > performance degrades heavily, given that function queries are AFAIK
> > matching all the documents.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1) Apart from the two options I mentioned, is there any other (simple)
> way
> > to achieve this that we're not aware of?
> >
> > 2) If we have to choose the function queries path, would it be very
> > difficult to modify the actual implementation so that it doesn't match
> all
> > the documents, that is, to pass a query so that it only operates over the
> > documents matching the query?. Looking at the FunctionQuery.java source
> > code, there's a comment that says "// instead of matching all docs, we
> > could also embed a query. the score could either ignore the subscore, or
> > boost it", which is giving us some hope that maybe it's possible and even
> > desirable to go in this direction. If you can give us some directions
> about
> > how to go about this, we may be able to do the actual implementation.
> >
> > BTW, we're using Lucene/SOLR trunk.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help.
> > Carlos
> >
> > [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#Sort_By_Function
> >
>
