[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4795?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13599699#comment-13599699
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4795:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
I ask because it seems that the only thing that we get from this SortedSet
approach is not having to maintain a sidecar index (which for some reason
freaks everybody), and we even lose performance. Plus, I don't see how we can
support other facet features with it. So perhaps we should focus on how to use
the search index to build a taxonomy? Maybe it's all in-memory, that's fine. If
we manage to support on-disk lookups too, even better. But if we do that, then
we should have no problems supporting all current facet features, because all
that the taxonomy index gives us is a global-ordinal (plus hierarchy
management, but I think we can do that w/ SortedSet too). We can of course
explore that in a different issue.
{quote}
Well the taxonomy index doesn't give you global ordinals. it gives you global
"termIDs", which are unique integers: but they aren't ordinals: their sort
order is meaningless. this creates additional trouble if you want to try to
integrate the current lucene facet module with e.g. solr that has faceting
options that rely upon these properties.
Its also unclear to me how the taxonomy index would really integrate in a
distributed system like solr or elasticsearch. I know there has been discussion
about it before, and I'm sure there are solutions, but it just seems fairly
complicated.
on the other hand SortedSet doesn't have these problems. maybe it doesnt
support weighted facets or other features, but its a nice option. I personally
don't think its the end of the world if Mike's patch doesnt support all the
features of the faceting module initially or even ever.
The idea is just to have more choices. I'm not saying you should get rid of the
taxonomy index: just provide options. I don't think lucene's faceting support
needs to be limited to only a single one-size-fits-all solution but instead
have a few options with different tradeoffs. Compare with something like the
suggest module, it has like 5 or 6 implementations.
> Add FacetsCollector based on SortedSetDocValues
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4795
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4795
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: modules/facet
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Attachments: LUCENE-4795.patch, LUCENE-4795.patch, LUCENE-4795.patch,
> LUCENE-4795.patch, pleaseBenchmarkMe.patch
>
>
> Recently (LUCENE-4765) we added multi-valued DocValues field
> (SortedSetDocValuesField), and this can be used for faceting in Solr
> (SOLR-4490). I think we should also add support in the facet module?
> It'd be an option with different tradeoffs. Eg, it wouldn't require
> the taxonomy index, since the main index handles label/ord resolving.
> There are at least two possible approaches:
> * On every reopen, build the seg -> global ord map, and then on
> every collect, get the seg ord, map it to the global ord space,
> and increment counts. This adds cost during reopen in proportion
> to number of unique terms ...
> * On every collect, increment counts based on the seg ords, and then
> do a "merge" in the end just like distributed faceting does.
> The first approach is much easier so I built a quick prototype using
> that. The prototype does the counting, but it does NOT do the top K
> facets gathering in the end, and it doesn't "know" parent/child ord
> relationships, so there's tons more to do before this is real. I also
> was unsure how to properly integrate it since the existing classes
> seem to expect that you use a taxonomy index to resolve ords.
> I ran a quick performance test. base = trunk except I disabled the
> "compute top-K" in FacetsAccumulator to make the comparison fair; comp
> = using the prototype collector in the patch:
> {noformat}
> Task QPS base StdDev QPS comp StdDev
> Pct diff
> OrHighLow 18.79 (2.5%) 14.36 (3.3%)
> -23.6% ( -28% - -18%)
> HighTerm 21.58 (2.4%) 16.53 (3.7%)
> -23.4% ( -28% - -17%)
> OrHighMed 18.20 (2.5%) 13.99 (3.3%)
> -23.2% ( -28% - -17%)
> Prefix3 14.37 (1.5%) 11.62 (3.5%)
> -19.1% ( -23% - -14%)
> LowTerm 130.80 (1.6%) 106.95 (2.4%)
> -18.2% ( -21% - -14%)
> OrHighHigh 9.60 (2.6%) 7.88 (3.5%)
> -17.9% ( -23% - -12%)
> AndHighHigh 24.61 (0.7%) 20.74 (1.9%)
> -15.7% ( -18% - -13%)
> Fuzzy1 49.40 (2.5%) 43.48 (1.9%)
> -12.0% ( -15% - -7%)
> MedSloppyPhrase 27.06 (1.6%) 23.95 (2.3%)
> -11.5% ( -15% - -7%)
> MedTerm 51.43 (2.0%) 46.21 (2.7%)
> -10.2% ( -14% - -5%)
> IntNRQ 4.02 (1.6%) 3.63 (4.0%)
> -9.7% ( -15% - -4%)
> Wildcard 29.14 (1.5%) 26.46 (2.5%)
> -9.2% ( -13% - -5%)
> HighSloppyPhrase 0.92 (4.5%) 0.87 (5.8%)
> -5.4% ( -15% - 5%)
> MedSpanNear 29.51 (2.5%) 27.94 (2.2%)
> -5.3% ( -9% - 0%)
> HighSpanNear 3.55 (2.4%) 3.38 (2.0%)
> -4.9% ( -9% - 0%)
> AndHighMed 108.34 (0.9%) 104.55 (1.1%)
> -3.5% ( -5% - -1%)
> LowSloppyPhrase 20.50 (2.0%) 20.09 (4.2%)
> -2.0% ( -8% - 4%)
> LowPhrase 21.60 (6.0%) 21.26 (5.1%)
> -1.6% ( -11% - 10%)
> Fuzzy2 53.16 (3.9%) 52.40 (2.7%)
> -1.4% ( -7% - 5%)
> LowSpanNear 8.42 (3.2%) 8.45 (3.0%)
> 0.3% ( -5% - 6%)
> Respell 45.17 (4.3%) 45.38 (4.4%)
> 0.5% ( -7% - 9%)
> MedPhrase 113.93 (5.8%) 115.02 (4.9%)
> 1.0% ( -9% - 12%)
> AndHighLow 596.42 (2.5%) 617.12 (2.8%)
> 3.5% ( -1% - 8%)
> HighPhrase 17.30 (10.5%) 18.36 (9.1%)
> 6.2% ( -12% - 28%)
> {noformat}
> I'm impressed that this approach is only ~24% slower in the worst
> case! I think this means it's a good option to make available? Yes
> it has downsides (NRT reopen more costly, small added RAM usage,
> slightly slower faceting), but it's also simpler (no taxo index to
> manage).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
