Can someone confirm the behaviour of the Smart search results webpart when using a Smart search filter on a particular field, documentation here, when the index, and the expected results, are compound of multiple page types?
In my scenario I have 2 page types, one is always a child of the other, my hypothetical scenario would be a Folder and File types as an example.
I've configured the index with Pages type and Standard analyzer to include all Folder and File types under the path /MyOS/% on the tree.
The search page, includes the Smart search results webpart and a Smart search filter, a checkbox for the File's field FileIsHidden.
What I'm trying to ascertain is the possibility for the results to include all folders that have a hidden field, as well as the files?
Client has a v8.2 license and now has a requirement similar to this scenario.
Thanks so much for any help in advance.
Firstly what i would do is download the latest version of LUKE, it's a lucene inspector that allows you to run queries, inspect the data, etc.
https://code.google.com/archive/p/luke/downloads
Your search indexes are in the App_Data/Modules/SmartSearch/[SearchName], now i am not sure if LUKE can query 2 indexes as the same time, however you can run hte same query against both and see if it's filtering out results one way or another.
If you are trying to query where a field must be a value, and the other page type does not have the field, it probably is filtered out. What you need to do is use the lucene syntax to say "(classname = 'cms.file' and fileonlyproperty = '' OR classname <> 'cms.file')" so to say.
You'll have to test, but say the class name is cms.file and cms.folder, and the property is FileIsHidden, i think the syntax would be:
+((FieldIsHidden:(true) and classname:('cms.file')) OR (NOT classname:('cms.file'))
But you'll have to test that.
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:
I am using Marklogic's search:search() functions to handle searching within my application, and I have a use case where users need to be able to perform a text search that returns matches from an attribute on my document.
For example, using this document:
<document attr="foo attribute value">Some child content</document>
I want users to be able to perform a text search (not using constraints) for "foo", and to return my document based on the match within the attribute #attr. Is there some way to configure the query options to allow this?
Typing in attr:"foo" is not a workable solution, so using attribute range constraints won't help, and users still need to be able to search for other child content not in the attribute node. I'm thinking perhaps there is a way to add a cts:query OR'd into the search via the options, that allows this attribute to be searched?
Open to any and all other solutions.
Thanks!
Edit:
Some additional information, to help clarify:
I need to be able to find matches within the attribute, and elsewhere within the content. Using the example above, searches for "foo", "child content", or "foo child content" should all return my document as a result. This means that any query options that are AND'd with the search (like <additional-query>, which is intended to help constrain your search and not expand it) won't work. What I'm looking for is (likely) an additional query option that will be OR'd with the original search, so as to allow searching by child node content, attribute content, or a mix of the two.
In other words, I'd like MarkLogic to treat any attribute node content exactly the same as element text nodes, as far as searching is concerned.
Thanks!!
You could accomplish this search with a serialized element-attribute-word cts query in the additional-query options for the search API. The element attribute word query will use the universal index to match individual tokens within attributes.
In MarkLogic 9 You may be able to use the following to perform your search:
import module namespace search = "http://marklogic.com/appservices/search"
at "/MarkLogic/appservices/search/search.xqy";
search:search("",
<options xmlns="http://marklogic.com/appservices/search">
<additional-query>
<cts:element-attribute-word-query xmlns:cts="http://marklogic.com/cts">
<cts:element>document</cts:element>
<cts:attribute>attr</cts:attribute>
<cts:text>foo</cts:text>
</cts:element-attribute-word-query>
</additional-query>
</options>
)
MarkLogic has ways to parse query text and map a value to an attribute word or value query.
First, you can use cts:parse():
http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/search-dev/cts_query#id_71878
http://docs.marklogic.com/cts.parse
Second, you can use search:search() with constraints defined in an XML payload:
http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/search-dev/query-options#id_39116
http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/search-dev/appendixa#id_36346
I'd look into using the <default> option of <term>. For details see http://docs.marklogic.com/guide/search-dev/appendixa#id_31590
Alternatively, consider doing query expansion. The idea behind that is that a end user send a search string. You parse it using search:parse of cts:parse (as suggested by Erik), and instead of submitting that query as-is to MarkLogic, you process the cts:query tree, to look for terms you want to adjust, or expand. Typically used to automatically blend in synonyms, related terms, or translations, but could be used to copy individual terms, and automatically add queries on attributes for those.
HTH!
I have a content type called 'ticket'; its Node type for comments is 'interaction'.
I want a search interface which searches through only these two (ticket,interaction) content-types; and output the node-link/title
Also, even though matches are found in interactions, i should be displaying the respective ticket node-link/title. (since interaction are actually the comments for the ticket node)
Can anybody please help me achieve this?
Thanks!
You should try using the Views module in conjunction with the core search module. You can create a view, filter the content type to ticket, and then add an exposed "Search: Search Terms" filter to your view.
Of course you could also write a quick custom module and do your own query.
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.