lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Solr 1.4 Clustering / mlt AS search?
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:40:42 GMT
Inline...

On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Mark Bennett wrote:

> I'm going somewhere with this... be patient.  :-)  I had asked about  
> this
> briefly at the SF meetup, but there was a lot going on.
>
> 1: Suppose you had Solr 1.4 and all the Carrot^2 DOCUMENT clustering  
> was all
> in, and you had built the cluster index for all your docs.
>
> 2: Then, if you had a particular cluster, and one of the docs in that
> cluster happened to be your search, then the other documents in the  
> cluster
> could be considered the results.  In effect, the cluster is like the  
> search
> results.
>
> 3: Now imagine you can take an arbitrary doc and find the clusters  
> that
> document is in.  (some clustering engines let you do this).
>
> 4: And then imagine that, when somebody submits a search, you  
> quickly turn
> it into a document, add it to the index, redo the clusters, find the
> clusters this new temp doc is in, and use that as the results.
>

I guess I'd argue that this is already what Lucene does, except for  
the part about adding the query into the document set.  The Lucene  
Query is just your arbitrary document.  Really, the primary difference  
as I see it, I think, is that you want a the Carrot2 scoring mechanism  
instead of the
existing Lucene one, no?  Otherwise, I don't see much benefit to  
actually indexing the query, other than it could potentially be used  
to skew results over time as people ask the same queries over and over  
again.

Under a certain lens, couldn't you just argue that search is finding  
all the docs that cluster around your query?  (I know that isn't the  
traditional description, but regardless, the math underneath is often  
very similar)


> Benefits?
>
> I'm not saying this would be practical, but would it be useful?  Or,  
> in
> particular, would it be more useful than the normal Solr/Lucene  
> relevancy?
> As I recall Carrot^2 had 3 choices for clustering.

>
> And let's assume that the searches coming in are more than the 1.4  
> words
> average.  Maybe a few sentences or something.  I'm mot sure a 1 word  
> query
> would really benefit from this.  :-)
>
> Some clustering algorithms don't allow you to find a cluster  
> containing a
> specific document, so those wouldn't work as a "search engine".
>
> More Like This as a "cluster" search?
>
> A similar scenario could be made for the "more like this" feature.   
> Take a
> user's search text (presumably lengthy), quickly index it, then use  
> that new
> temp doc as a MLT seed doc.  I haven't looked deep into the code, it  
> might
> be that it uses essentially the same relevancy as a query.

Again, I don't see the benefit of indexing it.  You slightly peturb  
the corpus statistics, but other than that, how is it different from  
just submitting the query and getting back the results?



Mime
View raw message