We are using Solr to provide search functionality for our site, and I have the following requirement which has me stumped:
Given the search term "2011 Bolinger", identify that "Bollinger" (note the different spelling) is a valid value for the Producer facet, and automatically apply facet filtering for this value.
It's the fuzzy matching of the search term which I'm stuck on. Does anyone know of a way to include information in a Solr response about synonym matches which have occurred for a query during the search (i.e. a way for Solr to tell me that it saw the word 'Bollinger' in a document and recognised it as equivalent to 'Bolinger')? From what I've read so far of the Solr documentation I can't see a way to do this, but I may have missed something.
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 using Solr 6.0.0
I am using data-driven-configuration for my configuration related purpose. Most of the configuration is standard.
I have a document in Solr with
name:"aquickbrownfox"
Now if I do a fuzzy search like:
name:aquickbrownfo~0.7
OR
name:aquickbrownf~0.7
It lists out the record in the results.
But if I do a search like:
name:aquickbrown~0.7
It does not list the record.
Does it have to do something with the maxEdits in solrconfig.xml which is set to 2 ?
I tried increasing it. But I could not create a collection with this configuration. It gave an error:
ERROR: Error CREATEing SolrCore 'my-search': Unable to create core
[my-search] Caused by: Invalid maxEdits
Max 2 Edits seems to be a serious limitation. I wonder what is the use of passing the fractional value after the ~ operator.
My Usecase:
I have a contact database. I am supposed to detect the duplicates based on three parameters : Name, Email and Phone. So I rely on Solr for Fuzzy search. Email and Phone are relatively easy to work with simple assumptions. Name seems to be a bit tricky. For each word in the Name, I plan to do a fuzzy search. I expected the optional parameter after ~ to work without the maxEdit distance limitation.
The documentation no longer suggests using a fractional value after the tilde - see http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Fuzzy_Searches for more information.
However, you are correct that only 2 changes are allowed to be made to the search string in order to carry out a fuzzy search. I would guess this limitation strikes a balance between efficiency and usefulness.
The maxEdits parameter in solrconfig.xml applies to the DirectSpellChecker configuration, and doesn't affect your searching, unless you're using the spell checker.
For your use case, your best approach may be to index the name field twice, using different field configurations: one using a simple set of analyzers and filters (ie. StandardTokenizerFactory, StandardFilterFactory, LowerCaseFilterFactory), and the other using a phonetic matcher such as the Beider-Morse filter. You can use the first field to carry out fuzzy searches, and the second version to look for names which may be spelled differently but sound the same as the name being checked.
I am using solr for searching. I wants to improve my search result quality based on previously searched terms. Suppose, I have two products in my index with names 'Jewelry Crystal'(say it belongs to Group 1) & 'Compound Crystal'(say it belongs to Group 2). Now, if we query for 'Crystal', then both the products will come.
Let say, if I had previously searched for 'Jewelry Ornament', then I searches for 'Crystal', then I expects that only one result ('Jewelry Crystal') should come. There is no point of showing 'Compound Crystal' product to any person looking for jewelry type product.
Is there any way in SOLR to honour this kind of behavior or is there any other method to achieve this.
First of all, there's nothing built-in in Solr to achive this. What you need for this is some kind of user session, which is not supported by Solr, or a client side storage like a cookie or something for the preceding query.
But to achive the upvote you can use a runtime Boost Query.
Assuming you're using the edismax QueryParser, you can add the following to your Solr query:
q=Crystal&boost=bq:(Jewelry Ornament)
See http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax#bq_.28Boost_Query.29
I use solr to search for documents and when trying to search for documents using this query "id:*", I get this query parser exception telling that it cannot parse the query with * or ? as the first character.
HTTP Status 400 - org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse 'id:*': '*' or '?' not allowed as first character in WildcardQuery
type Status report
message org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse 'id:*': '*' or '?' not allowed as first character in WildcardQuery
description The request sent by the client was syntactically incorrect (org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse 'id:*': '*' or '?' not allowed as first character in WildcardQuery).
Is there any patch for getting this to work with just * ? Or is it very costly to do such a query?
If you want all documents, do a query on *:*
If you want all documents with a certain field (e.g. id) try id:[* TO *]
Lucene doesn't allow you to start WildcardQueries with an asterisk by default, because those are incredibly expensive queries and will be very, very, very slow on large indexes.
If you're using the Lucene QueryParser, call setAllowLeadingWildcard(true) on it to enable it.
If you want all of the documents with a certain field set, you are much better off querying or walking the index programmatically than using QueryParser. You should really only use QueryParser to parse user input.
id:[a* TO z*] id:[0* TO 9*] etc.
I just did this in lukeall on my index and it worked, therefore it should work in Solr which uses the standard query parser. I don't actually use Solr.
In base Lucene there's a fine reason for why you'd never query for every document, it's because to query for a document you must use a new indexReader("DirectoryName") and apply a query to it. Therefore you could totally skip applying a query to it and use the indexReader methods numDocs() to get a count of all the documents, and document(int n) to retrieve any of the documents.
If you are just trying to get all documents, Solr does support the *:* query. It's the only time I know of that Solr will let you begin a query with an *. I'm sure you've probably seen this as the default query in the Solr admin page.
If you are trying to do a more specific query with an * as the first character, like say id:*456 then one of the best ways I've seen is to index that field twice. Once normally (field name: id), and once with all the characters reversed (field name: reverse_id). Then you could essentially do the query id:456 by sending the query reverse_id:654 instead. Hope that makes sense.
You can also search the Solr user group mailing list at http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-user#lucene.apache.org/ where questions like this come up quite often.
The following Solr issue is a request to be able to configure the default lucene query parser.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-218
In this issue you can find the following description how to 'patch' Solr. This modification would allow you to start queries with a *.
Jonas Salk: I've basically updated only one Java file: SolrQueryParser.java.
public SolrQueryParser(IndexSchema schema, String defaultField) {
...
setAllowLeadingWildcard(true);
setLowercaseExpandedTerms(true);
...
}
...
public SolrQueryParser(QParser parser, String defaultField, Analyzer analyzer) {
...
setAllowLeadingWildcard(true);
setLowercaseExpandedTerms(true);
...
}
I'm not sure if setLowercaseExpandedTerms is needed...
I'm assuming with id:* you're just trying to match all documents, right?
I've never used solr before, but in my Lucene experience, when ingesting data, we've added a hidden field to every document, then when we need to return every record we do a search for the string constant in that field that's the same for every record.
If you can't add a field like that in your situation, you could use a RegexQuery with a regex that would match anything that could be found in the id field.
Edit: actually answering the question. I've never heard of a patch to get that to work, but I would be surprised if it could even be made to work reasonably well. See this question for a reason why unconstrained PrefixQuery's can cause a problem.
Actually, I have been using a workaround for this. I append a character to the id, eg: A1, A2, etc.
With such values in the field, it is possible to search using the query id:A*
But would love to find whether a true solution exists.