Hi Sergey,
>> Now, we already have the original PDF occupying some space, so
>>duplicating it (its content) with a Document with Store.YES fields may
>>not be the best idea in some cases.
In some cases, agreed, but in general, this is probably a good default idea.
As you point out, you aren't quite duplicating the document -- one copy contain
the original bytes, and the other contains the text (and metadata?) that was
extracted from the document. One reason to store the content in the field is
for easy highlighting. You could configure the highlighter to pull the text
content of the document from a db or other source, but that adds complexity and
perhaps lookup time. What you really would not want to do from a time
perspective is ask Tika to parse the raw bytes to pull the content for
highlighting at search time. In general, Lucene's storage of the content is
very reasonable; on one big batch of text files I have, the Lucene index with
stored fields is the same size as the uncompressed text files.
>>So I wonder, is it possible somehow for a given Tika Parser, lets say a
>>PDF parser, report, via the Metadata, the start and end indexes of the
>>content ? So the consumer will create say InputStreamReader for a
>>content region and will use Store.NO and this Reader ?
I don't think I quite understand what you're proposing. The start and end
indexes of the extracted content? Wouldn't that just be 0 and the length of
the string in most cases (beyond-bmp issues aside)? Or, are you suggesting
that there may be start and end indexes for content within the actual raw bytes
of the PDF? If the latter, for PDFs at least that would effectively require a
full reparse ... if it were possible, and it probably wouldn't save much in
time. For other formats, where that might work, it would create far more
complexity than value...IMHO.
In general, I'd say store the field. Perhaps let the user choose to not store
the field.
Always interested to hear input from others.
Best,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to index the parsed content effectively
Hi Tim, All.
On 02/07/14 14:32, Allison, Timothy B. wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> I'd take a look at what the DataImportHandler in Solr does. If you want
> to store the field, you need to create the field with a String (as opposed to
> a Reader); which means you have to have the whole thing in memory. Also, if
> you're proposing adding a field entry in a multivalued field for a given SAX
> event, I don't think that will help, because you still have to hold the
> entire document in memory before calling addDocument() if you are storing the
> field. If you aren't storing the field, then you could try a Reader.
I'd like to ask something about using Tika parser and a Reader (and
Lucene Store.NO)
Consider a case where we have a service which accepts a very large PDF
file. This file will be stored on the disk or may be in some DB. And
this service will also use Tika to extract content and populate a Lucene
Document.
Now, we already have the original PDF occupying some space, so
duplicating it (its content) with a Document with Store.YES fields may
not be the best idea in some cases.
So I wonder, is it possible somehow for a given Tika Parser, lets say a
PDF parser, report, via the Metadata, the start and end indexes of the
content ? So the consumer will create say InputStreamReader for a
content region and will use Store.NO and this Reader ?
Does it really make sense at all ? I can create a minor enhancement
request for parsers getting the access to a low level info like the
start/stop delimiters of the content to report it ?
Cheers, Sergey
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> At the least, you could create a separate Lucene document for each
> container document and each of its embedded documents.
>
> You could also break large documents into logical sections and index those
> as separate documents; but that gets very use-case dependent.
>
> In practice, for many, many use cases I've come across, you can index
> quite large documents with no problems, e.g. "Moby Dick" or "Dream of the Red
> Chamber." There may be a hit at highlighting time for large docs depending
> on which highlighter you use. In the old days, there used to be a 10k
> default limit on the number of tokens, but that is now long gone.
>
> For truly large docs (probably machine generated), yes, you could run into
> problems if you need to hold the whole thing in memory.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 8:27 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: How to index the parsed content effectively
>
> Hi All,
>
> We've been experimenting with indexing the parsed content in Lucene and
> our initial attempt was to index the output from
> ToTextContentHandler.toString() as a Lucene Text field.
>
> This is unlikely to be effective for large files. So I wonder what
> strategies exist for a more effective indexing/tokenization of the
> possibly large content.
>
> Perhaps a custom ContentHandler can index content fragments in a unique
> Lucene field every time its characters(...) method is called, something
> I've been planning to experiment with.
>
> The feedback will be appreciated
> Cheers, Sergey
>
