In Azure Search you can boost a query by using first term || secondterm^2 to give more weight to a particular part of the query.
You can also filter for documents that belong to a particular group using search.in(): https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/search/search-query-odata-search-in-function
$filter=group_ids/any(g: search.in(g, '123, 456, 789'))
What I would like to do is boost a document if it belongs to a group but not restrict to only documents that belong to that group.
Something like:
search=mysearchterm^3&$filter=group_ids/any(g: search.in(g, '123, 456, 789'))^2
But (1) boosting on the filter doesn't seem to work and (2) this would restrict to only documents that belong to group 123,456,789. I would like it to only boost if it belongs, but not restrict to only those groups.
Is this possible?
I've had a look at "Tag Boosting": https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/blog/personalizing-search-results-announcing-tag-boosting-in-azure-search/
But it doesn't seem relevant, it only seems possible to tag boost a top level string field, not a string or int field within a collection.
UPDATE:
I think i've figured it out as:
search=mysearchterm AND (group_id:123)^2
If you're using a complex collection it might be:
search=mysearchterm AND (groups/id:123)^2
Filters are designed to constrain your result set by filtering out documents that don't match the filter criteria. This process happens before term matching and scoring. Given that this is not what you are trying to do, I don't think filters are the right tools for the job.
You can try to instead craft a Lucene query that includes the logic you described:
mysearchterm OR (mysearchterm AND group_ids:(123 OR 456 OR 789))^2
Related
If I may have missed this in some other area of SO please redirect me but I don't think this is a duped question.
I am using Azure Search with an index field called Title which is searchable and filterable using a Standard Lucerne Analyzer.
When using the built-in explorer, if I want to return all Job Titles that are explicitly named Full Stack Developer I can achieve it this way:
$filter=Title eq 'Full Stack Developer'&$count=true
But if I want to retrieve all the Job Titles using a wildcard to return all records having Full Stack in the name this way:
$filter=Title eq 'Full Stack*'&$count=true
The first 20 or so records returned are spot on, but after that point I get a mix of records that have absolutely nothing in common with the Title I specified in the query. My initial assumption was that perhaps Azure was including my specified Title performing an inclusive keyword search on the text as well.
Though I found a few instances where that hypothesis seemed to prove out, so many more of the records returned invalidated that altogether.
Maybe I don't understand fully the mechanics under the hood of Azure Search and so though my query appears to be valid; my expectation of the result is way off.
So how should my query look to perform a wildcard resulting to guarantee the words specified in the search to be included in the Titles returned, if this should be possible? And what would be the correct syntax to condition the return to accommodate for OR operators to be inclusive?
Azure Cognitive Search allows you to perform wildcard searches limited to specific fields only. To do so, you will need to specify the name of the fields in which you want to perform the search in searchFields parameter.
Your search URL in this case would be something like:
https://accountname.search.windows.net/indexes/indexname/docs?api-version=2020-06-30&searchFields=Title&search=Full Stack*
From the link here:
Does anyone know how to ensure we can return normal result as well as accented result set via the azure search filter. For e.g the below filter query in Azure search returns a name called unicorn when i check for record with name unicorn.
var result= searchServiceClient.Documents.SearchAsync<myDto>("*",new SearchParameters
{
SearchFields = new List<string> {"Name"},
Filter = "Name eq 'unicorn'"
});
This is all good but what i want is i want to write a filter such that it returns record named unicorn as well as record named únicorn (please note the first accented character) provided that both record exist.
This can be achieved when searching for such name via the search query using language or Standard ASCII folding search analyzer as mentioned in this link. What i am struggling to find out is how can we implement the same with azure filters?
Please let me know if anyone has got any solutions around this.
Filters are applied on the non-analyzed representation of the data, so I don’t think there’s any way to do any type of linguistic analysis on filters. One way to work around this is to manually create a field which only do lowercasing + asciifloding (no tokenization) and then search lucene queries that look like this:
"normal search query terms" AND customFilterColumn:"filtérValuèWithÄccents"
Basically the document would both need to match the search terms in any field AND also match the filter term in the “customFilterColumn”. This may not be sufficient for your needs, but at least you understand the art of the possible.
Using filters it won't work unless you specify in advance all the possibilities:
for example:
$filter=name eq 'unicorn' or name eq 'únicorn'
You'd better work with a different analyzer that will change accents to it's root form. As another possibility, you can try fuzzy search:
search=unicorn~&highlight=Name
I am looking for a way to do wildcard search only on specific elements when executing a search:search. Specifically, I might have documents that look like the following:
<pdbe:person-envelope xmlns:pdbe="http://schemas.abbvienet.com/people-db/envelope">
<person xmlns="http://schemas.abbvienet.com/people-db/model">
<costcenter>
<code>0000601775</code>
<name>DISC-PLAT INFORM</name>
</costcenter>
<displayName>Tj Tang</displayName>
<upi>10025613</upi>
<firstName>
<preferred>TJ</preferred>
<given>Tze-John</given>
</firstName>
<lastName>
<preferred>Tang</preferred>
<given>Tang</given>
</lastName>
<title>Principal Research Scientist</title>
</person>
<pdbe:raw/>
</pdbe:person-envelope>
When searches happen, I want the search text to be automatically wildcarded, but only for certain elements like displayName, firstName, lastName, but NOT for upi or code. As I understand it, I would have certain wildcard related indexes enabled in the database, but then I would need to have a custom query parser that rewrite the query into multiple cts:element-query and cts:element-value-query statements for each element that I want to wildcard search on, OR'd with the originally parsed search query. Or I can create field constraints, and rewrite the query to use field contraints.
Is there another way to conditionally search using wildcard on some elements but not others, when the user is entering as simple search query?, i.e. partial first and last name, "TJ Tan", but no partial hits when I search "100256".
You are on the right track. Lets take an element (or maybe field) query on "TS Tan"
With cts:tokenize, you can break this up (read about cs:tokenize - it is not just a normal tokenizer).
Then I have "TS" and "Tan"
You can the do things like apply business rules on which word should be wild-carded and which not and build the appropriate cts query (probably individual word queries in an and statement - or a near query - tuning depends on your need).
Now with search phrase tokenized, you can also consider that you may find building your results relies not on a wildcard index, but on a an element word lexicon - where you do your term-expansion with word-matches and those terms are then sent to the query.
We sometimes take that further and combine the query building with xdmp:estimate and make the query less restrictive if we don't get enough results early on.
Where to put this logic?
You mention search:search, so in this case, I would suggest you package this into a custom constraint.
Searching Magento with fulltext search engine and like method , it will store results in catalogsearch_fulltext table in "data_index" field where it stores value in the format like
each searchable attribute is separated with |.
e.g
3003|Enabled|None||Product name|1.99|yellow|0
here it store sku,status,tax class, product name , price ,color etc etc
It stores all searchable attribute value.
Now the issue is for Configurable product , it will also store the associated products name ,price ,status in the same field like
3003|Enabled|Enabled|Enabled|Enabled|None|None|None|None|Product name|Product name|associted Product name1|associted Product name2|associted Product name3|1.99|2.00|2.99|3.99|yellow|black|yellow|green|0|0|0|0
So what happen is if i search for any word from associated product, it will also list the main configurable product as it has the word in its "data_index" field.
Need some suggestion how can i avoid associated products being included in data_index, So that i can have perfect search result.
thanks
We are looking into our search as well and it has been surprising to see the inefficiencies included in the fulltext table. We have some configurable products as well that have MANY variations and their population in the fulltext search is downright horrendous.
As for solutions, I can only offer my approach to fix the problem (not completed: but rather in the process).
I am extending Magento to include an event listener to the process of indexing the products (Because catalog search indexing is when the fulltext database is populated). Once that process occurs, I am writing my own module to remove duplicate entries from the associated products and also to add the functionality of adding additional search keyword terms as populated from a CSV file.
This should effectively increase search speed dramatically and also return more relevent search results. Because as of now, configurable products are getting "search bias" in the search results.
This isn't so much of an answer as a comment, but it was too lengthy to fit in the comments but I thought this might be beneficial to you. Once I get my module working, if you would like, I can possibly give you directions on how you could implement a similar module yourself.
Hope that helped (if only for moral support in magento's search struggle)
I am using the AdvancedDatabaseCrawler as a base for my search page. I have configured it so that I can search for what I want and it is very fast. The problem is that as soon as you want to do anything with the search results that requires accessing field values the performance goes through the roof.
The main search results part is fine as even if there are 1000 results returned from the search I am only showing 10 or 20 results per page which means I only have to retrieve 10 or 20 items. However in the sidebar I am listing out various filtering options with the number or results associated with each filtering option (eBay style). In order to retrieve these filter options I perform a relationship search based on the search results. Since the search results only contain SkinnyItems it has to call GetItem() on every single result to get the actual item in order to get the value that I'm filtering by. In other words it will call Database.GetItem(id) 1000 times! Obviously that is not terribly efficient.
Am I missing something here? Is there any way to configure Sitecore search to retrieve custom values from the search index? If I can search for the values in the index why can't I also retrieve them? If I can't, how else can I process the results without getting each individual item from the database?
Here is an idea of the functionality that I’m after: http://cameras.shop.ebay.com.au/Digital-Cameras-/31388/i.html
Klaus answered on SDN: use facetting with Apache Solr or similar.
http://sdn.sitecore.net/SDN5/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=35618
I've currently resolved this by defining dynamic fields for every field that I will need to filter by or return in the search result collection. That way I can achieve the facetted searching that is required without needing to grab field values from the database. I'm assuming that by adding the dynamic fields we are taking a performance hit when rebuilding the index. But I can live with that.
In the future we'll probably look at utilizing a product like Apache Solr.