I want to implement a search function on any field of Elmah errors, beside using full text search on AllXml field(it is relative difficult to setup), is there any way to let the search fast? My site has a lot of traffic, and generat a lot of errors per minute.
ps, if I use full text search, as I see there are a lot of new errors generated, can I searched new errors in time?
It's almost guaranteed that full-text searching is going to be the fastest way to search the data, especially since Elmah stores the XML in an ntext field. Your only other option would be to do a text search using LIKE (slower and more limited than full-text), or to convert the ntext field into an xml data type every time you need to do a search. Depending on the number of errors you're searching over, that could be a very costly process.
The only downside to a full-text solution is that you run the risk of false positives if the search term matches to an XML item's definition (such as searching on the word "item" or "value"). As to your question about whether you'd be able to search errors in real-time, that would depend on your database platform. SQL Server can be configured in a number of ways to give you nearly real-time full text searching capabilities (see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142575.aspx).
Related
I'm trying to create a search feature in Meteor 1.8.1 that does the following:
returns partial matches, e.g. "fish" will find "fish", "fishcake" and "dogfish"
has server-side control of which documents are returned, so search results don't include documents that are not published to the user
is reasonably efficient
returns a limited number of results
This seems like it should be a common requirement, but I'm failing to find any solution.
MongoDB full text search will only return on whole words, so will only find "fish".
Easy search doesn't support server-side permissions, as far as I can tell.
I could try a regex solution but I think it would be expensive?
Thank you for any solutions!
Edit: From discussion it seems that Easy Search does support server-side filtering using a selector, and this would be the best solution. However, I can't get a selector working from the examples and documentation. For clarity, I've created a new question for that issue
The documentation explicitly states that for advanced use cases you may want to use elastic search and offers you a pluggable extension to ease the burden of integration.
https://matteodem.github.io/meteor-easy-search/docs/recipes/#advanced-search
You might wish that a search for cafe returns documents with the text café in them (special character). Or that your search string is split up by whitespace and those terms used to search across multiple fields.
You should consider using a search engine like ElasticSearch for your search if you have these usecases. ElasticSearch allows you to configure precisely how your fields are being searched. One way you can do that is by analyzing your data, so that searching itself is as fast as possible.
Suppose there's a table with columns (UserID, FieldID, Value), with half a million records. I want to see if some search term T(N) occurs anywhere in each Value (i.e. Value.Contains( T(N) ) ).
I think I'm just hitting a wall volume wise, just too many values to sift through. I don't think a Full Text index will help, because it's only useful for StartsWith queries that look at individual words, not occurrences anywhere within the string at all.
Is there a good approach to indexing this kind of data for such a search in SQL Server?
A half-million records is not terribly large, although I don't know the size of the field contents. A couple of ideas - this was too long for a comment or else I may have posted as such.
You could implement a full-text search engine like Elastic, Solr, etc and use it as a sidecar. If when you are doing text searches, you are not otherwise making much use of the other data, this might be easy enough. Note that you could put other data for searching into Elastic or Solr, but I'm not sure if you'd want to duplicate all your data, and those tools aren't really great for a transactional data store.
Another option for volumes this small, assuming you only need basic "contains" searching: create two more tables: keywords and keyword_index (or whatever). When saving, tokenize your text content and write out any new keywords to keywords table and then add the data to the join table. Index everything, and then do your search off the keywords table, joining back to the master via the intermediate keyword_index table.
This is fairly hackish, and getting your keyword handling really dialed in (for stemming, etc) may be a pain. It is a reasonable quick & dirty solution for smaller-scale needs though.
I'm just getting used to using elasticsearch in our platform, and so far it's proven to be a superb move, but other than some built in stats I haven't found any reference to creating a report of sorts. I guess the closest comparison would be facets, but it seems they need to be predefined in order to show stats for them.
What I would like to know is, is it possible to run reports such as:
What are the most popular phrases within the indexed content for the last 24 hours, week, etc.? This would be similar to what's used to produce Word/Tag Clouds, but without relying on user input (common search terms for example) as a source.
Can facets be suggested rather than specified based on the most popular phrases for a particular search term(s)? i.e. If someone searches for the term "Music" and the most popular phrases including "Music" are things like "Music Awards" or "Electronic Music", can those facets be returned without designing them explicitly into the initial request?
As you can see what I'd like to know if we can gain any analytics from the indexed content, not just explicit results.
For these types of reports and analytics of data in elasticsearch you may want to try Kibana3 http://three.kibana.org/. This will only work if your data has a timestamp as that is a requirement for analyzing data in Kibana. Tool is very flexible and I believe will give you the insights about your data you are looking for.
I'm using Solr 3.5.0 (with WebSphere Commerce). While performing a search, commerce use the suggestion tool to suggest (auto-complete) search terms regarding the letters already typed on the search box.
Currently WebSphere Commerce is using the Solr's TermsComponent. But one of my new requirement is to be abble to enrich the list of suggested terms.
Do you know is there is any way to do that by creating a plain text dictionary, using an other solr component, ... ?
Thanks for reading,
and for your help.
Regards,
Dekx.
I think a plain-text dictionary probably wouldn't be a usable data source (even if you could use it, search linearly through a plain-text file would probably be too slow). If you create an index from you dictionary, you could probably incorporate it in the TermsComponent as a shard (see the TermsComponent documentation, under the heading "Distributed Search Support").
I don't believe TermsComponent supports searching multiple fields, so you'll want to make sure the same field name is used for the terms in the dictionary that you want to use (that is, if you are looking at the "name" field in the index, then create a "name" field in your indexed dictionary as well, rather than a "dictionaryentry" field)
Just to my mind, though, I fail to understand what the value this would be. Generally, it's intended to look at the terms available in the index on that field. "Enriching" it with more data, would just be providing suggestions that it won't actually be able to find when searching. Of course, I don't really know about your search implementation, but in most cases, that would certainly be my thought.
I am just wondering if we could achieve some RDBMS capabilities in lucene.
Example:
1) I have 10,000 project documents (pdf files) which have to be indexed with their content to make them available for search.
2) Every document is related to a SINGLE PROJECT. The project can contain details like project name, number, start date, end date, location, type etc.
I have to search in the contents of the pdf files for a given keyword, but while displaying the results I want to display the project meta data as mentioned in point (2).
My idea is to associate a field called projectId with each pdf file while indexing. Once we get that, we will fire search again for getting project meta data.
This way we could avoid duplicated data. Also, if we want to update the project meta data we will end up updating at a SINGLE PLACE only. Otherwise if we store this meta data with all the pdf doument indexes, we will end up updating all of the documents, which is not the way I am looking for.
please advise.
If I understand you correctly, you have two questions:
Can I store a project id in Lucene and use it for further searches? Yes, you can. This is a common practice.
Can I use this project id to search Lucene for project meta data? Yes, you can. I do not know if this is a good idea. It depends on the frequency of your meta data updates and your access pattern. If the meta data is relatively static, and you only access it by id, Lucene may be a good place to store it. Otherwise, you can use the project id as a primary key to a database table, which could be a better fit.
Sounds like a perfectly good thing to do. The only limitation you'll have (by storing a reference to the project in Lucene rather than the project data itself) is that you won't be able to query both the document text and project metadata at the same time. For example, "documentText:foo OR projectName:bar" . If you have no such requirement, then seems like storing the ID in Lucene which refers to a database row is a fine thing to do.
I am not sure on your overall setup, but maybe Hibernate Search is for you. It would allow you to combine the benefits of a relational database with the power of a fulltext search engine like Lucene. The meta data could live in the database, maybe together with the original pdf documents, while the Lucene documents just contain the searchable data.
This is definitely possible. But always be aware of the fact that you're using Lucene for something that it was not intended for. In general, Lucene is designed for full-text search, not for mapping relational content. So the more complex your system your relational content becomes, the more you'll see a decrease in performance.
In particular, there are a few areas to keep a close eye on:
Storing the value of each field in your index will decrease performance. If you are not overly concerned with sub-second search results, or if your index is relatively small, then this may not be a problem.
Also, be aware that if you are not using the default ranking algorithm, and your custom algorithm requires information about the project in order to calculate the score for each document, this will have a dramatic impact on search performance, as well.
If you need a more powerful index that was designed for relational content, there are hierarchical indexing tools out there (one developed by Apache, called Jackrabbit) that are worth looking into.
As your project continues to grow, you might also check out Solr, also developed by Apache, which provides some added functionality, such as multi-faceted search.
You can use Lucene that way;
Pros:
Full-text search is easy to implement, which is not the case in an RDBMS.
Cons:
Referential integrity: you get it for free in an RDBMS, but in Lucene, you must implement it yourself.