I am building a faceted search with Lucene.NET, not using Solr. I want to get a list of navigation items within the current query. I just want to make sure I'm pointed in the right direction. I've got an idea in mind that will work, but I'm not sure if it's the right way to do this.
My plan at the moment is to create hiarchry of all available filters, then walk through the list using the technique described here to get a count for each, excluding filters which produce zero results. Does that sound alright, or am I missing something?
yeah. you're missing solr. the math they used behind doing faceted searching is very impressive, there is almost no good reason to not use it. the only exception i can find is if your index is small enough you can roll your own theory behind it, otherwise, its a good idea to stand on their shoulders.
Ok, so I finished my implementation. I did a lot of digging in the Lucene and Solr source code in the process and I'd recommend not using the implementation described in the linked question for several reasons. Not the least of which is that it relies on a depreciated method. It is needlessly clever; just writing your own collector will get you faster code that uses less RAM.
Related
I've got an ASP.NET site backed with a SQL Server database. I'm been using Lucene.NET to index and search the database. I'm adding faceted search navigation to the results page (the facets are a hiarchical category tree). I asked yesterday to make sure I was using the right technique for faceting. All I've gotten so far is a suggestion to use Solr, but Solr does a lot of things I don't need.
I would really like to know from anyone who is familiar with the Solr's source code if Solr's facet processing is terribly different from the one described here by Bert Willems. Bascially you have a Lucene filter for each facet, you get the bits array from it, and you count the set bits in the array.
I'm thinking since mine is hiarchical to begin with I should be able to optimize this pretty well, but I'm afraid I might be grossly under-estimating the impact of this design on search performance. If Solr is no quicker, I'm not going to gain anything by using it.
I'd recommend creating a prototype project modeling your faceting needs with Solr and benchmark it against Lucene.net.
Even though faceting in Solr is very optimized (and gets new optimizations all the time, like the parallel per-segment faceting method), when using Solr there is some overhead, for example network roundtrips and response parsing.
If your code already implements Lucene.NET, performs adequately and you don't need any of Solr's additional features, then there is no need to switch to Solr. But also consider that if you choose Solr you will get faceting performance boosts for free with each new version.
I have been working on sql server and front end coding and have usually faced problem formulating queries.
I do understand most of the concepts of sql that are needed in formulating queries but whenever some new functionality comes into the picture that can be dont using sql query, i do usually fails resolving them.
I am very comfortable with select queries using joins and all such things but when it comes to DML operation i usually fails
For every query that i never done before I usually finds uncomfortable with that while creating them. Whenever I goes for an interview I usually faces this problem.
Is it their some concept behind approaching on formulating sql queries.
Eg.
I need to create an sql query such that
A table contain single column having duplicate record. I need to remove duplicate records.
I know i can find the solution to this query very easily on Googling, but I want to know how everyone comes to the desired result.
Is it something like Practice Makes Man Perfect i.e. once you did it, next time you will be able to formulate or their is some logic or concept behind.
I could have get my answer of solving above problem simply by posting it on stackoverflow and i would have been with an answer within 5 to 10 minutes but I want to know the reason. How do you work on any new kind of query. Is it a major contribution of experience or some an implementation of concepts.
Whenever I learns some new thing in coding section I tries to utilize it wherever I can use it. But here scenario seems to be changed because might be i am lagging in some concepts.
EDIT
How could I test my knowledge and
concepts in Sql and related sql
queries ?
Typically, the first time you need to open a child proof bottle of pills, you have a hard time, but after that you are prepared for what it might/will entail.
So it is with programming (me thinks).
You find problems, research best practices, and beat your head against a couple of rocks, but in the process you will come to have a handy set of tools.
Also, reading what others tried/did, is a good way to avoid major obsticles.
All in all, with a lot of practice/coding, you will see patterns quicker, and learn to notice where to make use of what tool.
I have a somewhat methodical method of constructing queries in general, and it is something I use elsewhere with any problem solving I need to do.
The first step is ALWAYS listing out any bits of information I have in a request. Information is essentially anything that tells me something about something.
A table contain single column having
duplicate record. I need to remove
duplicate
I have a table (I'll call it table1)
I have a
column on table table1 (I'll call it col1)
I have
duplicates in col1 on table table1
I need to remove
duplicates.
The next step of my query construction is identifying the action I'll take from the information I have.
I'll look for certain keywords (e.g. remove, create, edit, show, etc...) along with the standard insert, update, delete to determine the action.
In the example this would be DELETE because of remove.
The next step is isolation.
Asnwer the question "the action determined above should only be valid for ______..?" This part is almost always the most difficult part of constructing any query because it's usually abstract.
In the above example you're listing "duplicate records" as a piece of information, but that's really an abstract concept of something (anything where a specific value is not unique in usage).
Isolation is also where I test my action using a SELECT statement.
Every new query I run gets thrown through a select first!
The next step is execution, or essentially the "how do I get this done" part of a request.
A lot of times you'll figure the how out during the isolation step, but in some instances (yours included) how you isolate something, and how you fix it is not the same thing.
Showing duplicated values is different than removing a specific duplicate.
The last step is implementation. This is just where I take everything and make the query...
Summing it all up... for me to construct a query I'll pick out all information that I have in the request. Using the information I'll figure out what I need to do (the action), and what I need to do it on (isolation). Once I know what I need to do with what I figure out the execution.
Every single time I'm starting a new "query" I'll run it through these general steps to get an idea for what I'm going to do at an abstract level.
For specific implementations of an actual request you'll have to have some knowledge (or access to google) to go further than this.
Kris
I think in the same way I cook dinner. I have some ingredients (tables, columns etc.), some cooking methods (SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, GROUP BY etc.) then I put them together in the way I know how.
Sometimes I will do something weird and find it tastes horrible, or that it is amazing.
Occasionally I will pick up new recipes from the internet or friends, then use parts of these in my own.
I also save my recipes in handy repositories, broken down into reusable chunks.
On the "Delete a duplicate" example, I'd come to the result by googling it. This scenario is so rare if the DB is designed properly that I wouldn't bother keeping this information in my head. Why bother, when there is a good resource is available for me to look it up when I need it?
For other queries, it really is practice makes perfect.
Over time, you get to remember frequently used patterns just because they ARE frequently used. Rare cases should be kept in a reference material. I've simply got too much other stuff to remember.
Find a good documentation to your software. I am using Mysql a lot and Mysql has excellent documentation site with decent search function so you get many answers just by reading docs. If you do NOT get your answer at least you are learning something.
Than I set up an example database (or use the one I am working on) and gradually build my SQL. I tend to separate the problem into small pieces and solve it step by step - this is very successful if you are building queries including many JOINS - it is best to start with some particular case and "polute" your SQL with many conditions like WHEN id = "123" which you are taking out as you are working towards your solution.
The best and fastest way to learn good SQL is to work with someone else, preferably someone who knows more than you, but it is not necessarry condition. It can be replaced by studying mature code written by others.
Your example is a test of how well you understand the DISTINCT keyword and the GROUP BY clause, which are SQL's ways of dealing with duplicate data.
Examples and experience. You look at other peoples examples and you create your own code and once it groks, you don't need to think about it again.
I would have a look at the Mere Mortals book - I think it's the one by Hernandez. I remember that when I first started seriously with SQL Server 6.5, moving from manual ISAM databases and Access database systems using VB4, that it was difficult to understand the syntax, the joins and the declarative style. And the SQL queries, while powerful, were very intimidating to understand - because typically, I was looking at generated code in Microsoft Access.
However, once I had developed a relatively systematic approach to building queries in a consistent and straightforward fashion, my skills and confidence quickly moved forward.
From seeing your responses you have two options.
Have a copy of the specification for whatever your working on (SQL spec and the documentation for the SQL implementation (SQLite, SQL Server etc..)
Use Google, SO, Books, etc.. as a resource to find answers.
You can't formulate an answer to a problem without doing one of the above. The first option is to become well versed into the capabilities of whatever you are working on.
The second option allows you to find answers that you may not even fully know how to ask. You example is fairly simplistic, so if you read the spec/implementation documentaion you would know the answer right away. But there are times, where even if you read the spec/documentation you don't know the answer. You only know that it IS possible, just not how to do it.
Remember that as far as jobs and supervisors go, being able to resolve a problem is important, but the faster you can do it the better which can often be done with option 2.
I just took over our solr/lucene stuff from my ex-colleague. But there is a weird bug.
If there is no optimization after dataimport, actually if there are multiple segment files, the search result then will be wrong. We are using a customized solr searchComponent. As far as I know about lucene, optimization should not affect search result. I doubt this may be related to multithreading or unclosed searcher/reader or something.
Anybody can help? Thank you.
It's still a guess. I find there is a custom lucene filter which is used by the custom search component. And in that filter, SolrIndexSearcher.search is called against the filter queries. Chances are high that this is the damn cause.
Could be a hint for guys who are familiar with lucene.
Is there a way to search the web which does NOT remove punctuation? For example, I want to search for window.window->window (Yes, I actually do, this is a structure in mozilla plugins). I figure that this HAS to be a fairly rare string.
Unfortunately, Google, Bing, AltaVista, Yahoo, and Excite all strip the punctuation and just show anything with the word "window" in it. And according to Google, on their site, at least, there is NO WAY AROUND IT.
In general, searching for chunks of code must be hard for this reason... anyone have any hints?
google codesearch ("window.window->window" but it doesn't seem to get any relevant result out of this request)
There is similar tools all over the internet like codase or koders but I'm not sure they let you search exactly this string. Anyway they might be useful to you so I think they're worth mentioning.
edit: It is very unlikely you'll find a general purpose search engine which will allow you to search for something like "window.window->window" because most search engines will do some processing on the document before storing it. For instance they might represent it internally as vectors of words (a vector space model) and use that to do the search, not the actual original string. And creating such a vector involves first cutting the document according to punctuation and other critters. This is a very complex and interesting subject which I can't tell you much more about. My bad memory did a pretty good job since I studied it at school!
BTW they might do the same kind of processing on your query too. You might want to read about tf-idf which is probably light years from what google and his friends are doing but can give you a hint about what happens to your query.
There is no way to do that, by itself in the main Google engine, as you discovered -- however, if you are looking for information about Mozilla then the best bet would be to structure your query something more like this:
"window.window->window" +Mozilla
OR +XUL
+ Another search string related to what you are
trying to do.
SymbolHound is a web search that does not remove punctuation from the queries. There is an option to search source code repositories (like the now-discontinued Google Code Search), but it also has the option to search the Internet for special characters. (primarily programming-related sites such as StackOverflow).
try it here: http://www.symbolhound.com
-Tom (co-founder)
I'm trying to implement a search feature for an offline-accessible StackOverflow, and I'm noticing some problems with using MySQLs FULLTEXT indexing.
Specifically, by default FULLTEXT indexing is restricted to words between 4 and 84 characters long. Terms such as "PHP" or "SQL" would not meet the minimum length and searching for those terms would yield no results.
It is possible to modify the variable which controls the minimum length a word needs to be to be indexed (ft_min_word_len), but this is a system-wide change requiring indexes in all databases to be rebuilt. On the off chance others find this app useful, I'd rather keep these sort of variables as vanilla as possible. I found a post on this site the other day stating that changing that value is just a bad idea anyway.
Another issue is with terms like "VB.NET" where, as far as I can tell, the period in the middle of the term separates it into two indexed values - VB and NET. Again, this means searches for "VB.NET" would return nothing.
Finally, since I'm doing a direct dump of the monthly XML-based dumps, all values are converted to HTML Entities and I'm concerned that this might have an impact on my search results.
I found a blog post which tries to address these issues with the following advice:
keep two copies of your data - one with markup, etc. for display, and one modified for searching (remove unwanted words, markup, etc)
pad short terms so they will be indexed, I assume with a pre/suffix.
What I'd like to know is, are these really the best workarounds for these issues? It seems like semi-duplicating a > 1GB table is wasteful, but maybe that's just me.
Also, if anyone could recommend a good site to understand MySQL's FULLTEXT indexing, I'd appreciate it. To keep this question from being too cluttered, please leave the site recommendations in the question comments, or email me directly at the site on my user profile).
Thanks!
Additional Info:
I think I should clarify a couple of things.
I know "MySQL" tends to lead to the assumption of "web application", but that's not what I'm going for here. I could install Apache and PHP and run things that way, but I'm trying to keep this light. I can use my website for playing with PHP, so I don't feel the need to install it on my home machine too. I also hope this could be useful for others as well, and I don't want to force anyone else into installing a bunch of extra utilities. I went with MySQL since it was easy and needing to install some sort of DB was unavoidable.
The specifics of the project were going to be:
Desktop application written in C# (WinForms)
MySQL backend
I'm starting to wonder if I should just say to hell with it, and install everything I'd need to make this an (offline) webapp. As much as we'd all like to think our pet project is going to be used and loved by the community at large, I should know by now that this is likely going end up being only used by a single user.
From what was already said, I understand, that MySQL FullText is not for you ;) But why stick to MySQL? Try Sphinx:
http://www.sphinxsearch.com/
It will solve most of your problems.