27 Nov
2012
27 Nov
'12
4:44 p.m.
Hi Edy,
I'm not a huge fan of the title_fr title_en title_morelanguages approach as
indeed it seems to be quite complex at the query level. I was more leaning
towards multiple indexes if we can query them globally but I understand
this is complex too.
Now let's see the use cases that are hugely important:
1/ Make sure that if you decide your wiki is monolingual:
- the indexing uses the specific language analyzer
- make sure the query uses the specific language analyzer
- make sure the search looks in all content even if the language setting
of the document is wrongly set (consider all documents being of the
specific language)
2/ Allow is a wiki is multi-lingual:
- search in the language you decide (maybe the UI should display a
language choice for the query)
- search in content that is analyzed in the proper language when the
content is declared in this language
- allow to specify if you want to restrict your search to documents
declared in the language of your query, versus search more widely in all
documents accross languages. If you search in only the language of the
query only one document can show up but it should point to the right
translation that matches, if you search in multiple languages then you can
show individual translations.
- allow technical users to search for all documents across all languages
(where the language analysis does not really matter)
From an admin point of view it makes good sense for the
admin to be able to
specify in a multilingual wiki which language analysis should be
activated,
and then have this transmitted to SOLR to properly configure the engine.
Reindexing is ok when changing the configuration.
I believe in the end wether you use multiple fields with _fr _en or
multiple SOLR cores, as long as you can query accross SOLR cores is a bit
the same. If you cannot run a query merging multiple indexes then the first
solution is kind of absolutely necessary as it would be the only one
allowing to search across all languages.
Maybe a solution would be to create one index per language and index ALL
content regardless of it's language using the language analyzer of that
index. This would allow to have better results even though the users have
badly tagged the language of a document, and it's only the job of the UI to
limit the search to only the language of the query, or all documents.
So you could have a configuration in the admin that says:
1/ Create an English Index
2/ Create an additional French index
The UI would allow to search in English and French, + would add a language
restriction for the documents.
In the future if we are able to "detect" the language of the documents we
could add a lucene field with the "detected" language instead of the
"provided" language of the documents, therefore increasing the quality of
searches only on documents of a specific language.
This later solution would be the only one that would really work on file
attachements as we have no information about the specific language of file
attachements (or even XWiki objects) which are attached to the main
document and not to the translated document.
This later issues shows that a search on "only french content" should still
include the attachements because we have no idea if the attachments are
"french" or "english".
Ludovic
2012/11/26 Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
Hi devs,
Any other input on this matter?
To summarize a bit, if we go with the multiple fields for each language, we
end up with an index like:
English version:
id: xwiki:Main.SomeDocument_en
language: en
space: Main
title_en: XWiki document
doccontent_en: This is some content
French version:
id: xwiki:Main.SomeDocument_fr
language: fr
space: Main
title_fr: XWiki document
doccontent_fr: This is some content
The Solr configuration is generated by some XWiki UI that returns a zip
that the admin has to unpack in his (remote) Solr instance. This could be
automated for the embedded instance. This operation is to be performed each
time an admin changes the indexed languages (rarely or even only once).
Querying such a schema is a bit tricky when you are interested in more than
one language, because you have to add all the clauses (title_en, title_fr,
etc.) specific to the languages you are interested in.
Some extra fields might also be added like title_ws (for whitespace
tokenization only) that have various approaches to the indexing operation,
with the aim of improving the relevancy.
One solution to simplify the query for API clients would be to use fields
like "title" and "doccontent" and to put as values very lightly (or
not at
all) analyzed content, as Paul suggested. This would allow applications to
write simple (and backwards compatible maybe) queries that will still work,
but will not catch some of the nuances of specific languages. As far as
I`ve seen until now, applications are not very interested in nuances, but
rather in filtering the results, a task for which this solution might be
well suited. Of course, nothing stops applications from using the *new* and
more expressive fields that are properly analized.
Thus, the search application will be the major beneficiary of these
analyzed fields (title_en, title_fr, etc.), while still allowing
applications to get their job done (trough generic, but less/not analized
fields like "title", "doccontent", etc.).
WDYT?
Thanks,
Eduard
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com
APIs
and
integration,
(admin)
Yes, however I don`t like the fact that we can not do everything from the
webapp and the admin needs to access the filesystem to install the given
configuration on the embedded/remote solr directory. Lucene does not have
this problem now. It just works with XWiki and everything is done from
XWiki UI. I feel that losing this commodity will not be very well received
you
Please see above regarding configuration generation. Basically, since we
are going to support both embedded and remote solr instances, we could
support things like editing the schema from XWiki only for the embedded
instance, but not for the remote one. We might end up having separate UIs
for each case, since we might want to exploit the flexibility of the
embedded one as much as possible.
>
> Those that want particular fields and tunings need to write their own
> schema.
>
> The same UI could also include whether to include a phonetic track or not
areas.
--
Ludovic Dubost
Founder and CEO
Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
wrote:
Hi Paul,
I was counting on your feedback :)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net>
wrote:
>
> Hello Eduard,
>
> it's nice of you to see you take this further.
>
> > This issue has already been previously [1] discussed during the GSoC
> > project, but I am not particularly happy with the chosen approach.
> > When handling multiple languages, there are generally[2][3] 3
different
> > approaches:
> >
> > 1) Indexing the content in a single field (like title, doccontent,
etc.)
> > - This has the advantage that queries
are clear and fast
> > - The disadvantage is that you can not run very well tuned analyzers
on
> the
> > fields, having to resort to (at best) basic tokenization and
> lowercasing.
> >
> > 2) Indexing the content in multiple fields, one field for each
language
> > (like title_en, title_fr, doccontent_en,
doccontent_fr, etc.)
> > - This has the advantage that you can easily specify (as dynamic
fields)
> > that *_en fields are of type text_en
(and analyzed by an
> english-centered
> > chain of analyzers); *_fr of type text_fr (focused on french, etc.),
> thus
> > making the results much better.
>
> I would add one more field here: title_ws and text_ws where the full
text
> is analyzed just as words (using the
whitespace-tokenizer?).
> A match there would even be preferred to a match in the below
text-fields.
>
> (maybe that would be called title and text?)
>
> > - The disadvantage is that querying such a schema is a pain. If you
want
> > all the results in all languages, you
end up with a big and expensive
> > query.
>
> Why is this an issue?
> Dismax does it for you for free (thanks to the "form" parameter that
> gives weight to each of the fields).
> This is an issue only if you start to have more than 100 languages or
> so...
> Lucene, the underlying engine of solr, handles thousands of clauses in a
> query without an issue (this is how prefix-queries are handled... they
are
> expanded to a query for any of the term that
matches the prefix, a
setting
deep
somewhere, which is about 2000 avoids this to explode).
Sure, Solr is great when you want to do simple queries like "XWiki Open
Source", however, since in XWiki we also expose the Solr/Lucene query to the platform, there will be (as as it is
currently with Lucene) a lot
of
extensions wanting to do search using this API.
These extensions (like
the
search suggest for example, rest search, etc)
want to do something like
"title:'Open Source' AND type:document AND doccontent:XWiki". Because
option 2) is so messy in it's fields, it would mean that the extension
would have to come up with a query like "title_en:'Open Source' AND
type:document AND doccontent_en:XWiki" (assuming that it is only limited
to
the current -- english or whatever -- language;
what happens if it wants
to
do that no matter what language? It will have to
specify each combination
possible because we can't use generic field names).
Solr's approach works for using it in your web application's search
input,
in a specific usecase, where you have precisely
specified the default
search fields and their boosts inside your schema.xml. However, as a
search
API, using option 2) you are making the life of
anyone else wanting to
use
the Solr search API really hard. Also, your
search application will work
nicely when the user enters a simple query in the input field, but an
advanced user will suffer the same fate when trying to write an advanced
query, thus not relying on the default query (computed by solr based on
schema.xml).
Also, based on your note above regarding improvements like title_ws and
such, again, all of these are very well suited for the search application
use case, together with the default query that you configure in
schema.xml,
making the search results perform really well.
However, what does all
these
fields mean to another extension wanting to do
search? Will it have to
handle all these implementation details to query for title, content and
such? I`m not sure how well this would work in practice.
Unrealistic idea(?): perhaps we should come up with an abstract search
language (Solr/Lucene clone) that parses the searched fields andhides the
complexities of all the indexed fields, allowing to write simple queries
like "title:XWiki", while this gets translated to "title_en:XWiki OR
title_fr:XWiki OR title_de:XWiki..." :)
Am I approaching this wrong by trying to have both a tweakable/tweaked
search application AND a search API? Are the two not compatible? Do we
have
to sacrifice search result performance (no
language-specific stuff) to be
able to have a usable API?
Can you please elaborate on this? I`m not sure I understand the problem.
>
> > -- Also, the schema.xml definition is a static one in this concern,
> > requiring you to know beforehand which languages you want to support
> (for
> > example when defining the default fields to search for). Adding a new
> > language requires you to start editing the xml files by hand.
>
> True but the available languages are almost all hand-coded.
> You could generate the schema.xml based on the available languages if
not
If you
want just some language, you have to read the right fields
(ex title_en) instead of just getting a clear field name (title).
You have to be careful, this is really only if you want to be specific.
In this case, it is likely that you also do not want so much stemming.
My experience, which was before dismax on curriki.org, has made it so
that any query that is a bit specific is likely to not desire stemming.
hand-generated?
Basically I would have to output a zip with schema.xml, solrconfig.xml then all the resources specific to all the
selected languages (stopwords,
synonims, etc) for the languages that we can provide out of the box. For
other languages, the admin would have to get dirty with the xmls.
>
> There's one catch with this approach which is new to me but seems to be
> quite important to implement this approach: the idf should be modified,
the
> Similarity class should be, so that the total
number of documents is the
> total number of documents having that language.
> See:
>
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201211.mbox/%3Cza…
> The solution sketched there sounds easy but I
have not tried it.
>
> > 3) Indexing the content in different Solr cores (indexes), one for
each
> > language. Each core requires it's on
directory and configuration
files.
> > - The advantage is that queries are
clean to write (like option 1) and
> that
> > you have a nice separation
> > - The disadvantage is that it's difficult to get it right
> (administrative
> > issues) and then you also have the (considerable) problem of having to
> fix
> > the relevancy score of a query result that has entries from different
> > cores; each core has it's own relevancy computed and does not consider
> the
> > others.
> > - To make it even worst, it seems that you can not [5] also push to a
> > remote Solr instance the configuration files when creating a new core
> > programatically. However, if we are running an embedded Solr instance,
> we
> > could provide a way to generate the config files and write them to the
> data
> > directory.
>
> Post-processing results is very very very dangerous as performance is at
> risk (e.g. if a core does not answer)... I would tend to avoid that as
much
as
possible.
Not really related, but this reminds me about the post processing that I
do for checking view rights over the returned result, but that's another
discussion that we will probably need to have :)
>
> > Currently I have implemented option 1) in our existing Solr > > which is also more or less compatible
with our existing Lucene
queries,
but
Already doing that.
> Funnily, cross-language-retrieval is a mature research field but
> retrieval for multilanguage user is not so!
>
> > On a related note, I have also watched an interesting presentation [3]
> > about how Drupal handles its Solr integration and, particularly, a
> plugin
> > [4] that handles the multilingual aspect.
> > The idea seen there is that you have this UI that helps you generate
> > configuration files, depending you your needs. For instance, you I would like to find a better solution that
actually analyses the
content.
During GSoC, option 2) was preferred but the implementation did not
consider practical reasons like the ones described above (query
complexity,
user configuration, etc.)
True, Savitha surfed the possibility of having different solr documents
per language.
I still could not be sure that this was not showing the document match
single in one language.
However, indicating which language it is matched into is probably
useful...
> > check that you need search for language
English, French and German and
> the
> > ui/extension gives you a zip with the configuration you need to use in
> your
> > (remote or embedded) solr instance. The configuration for each
language
> > comes preset with the analyzers you
should use for it and the
additional
resources (stopwords.txt, synonims.txt, etc.).
This approach helps with avoiding the need for admins to be forced to
edit
xml files and could also still be useful for
other cases, not only
option
2).
Generating sounds like an easy approach to me.
by users that now have some new install steps to
get XWiki running.
Well, of course, for the embedded solr version, we could handle it like
we
do now and push the files directly from the
webapp to the filesystem.
Since
embedded will be default, it should be OK and
avoid the extra install
step.
Users with a remote solr machine should have the
option to get the zip
instead.
Not sure if we can apply the new configuration without a restart, but
I`ll
have to look more into it. I know the multi-core
architecture supports
something like this but will have to see the details.
>
> > All these problems basically come from the fact that there is no way
to
> > specify in the schema.xml that, based on
the value of a field (like
the
> > field "lang" that stores the
document language), you want to run this
or
> > that group of analyzers.
>
> Well, this is possible with ThreadLocal but is not necessarily a good
> idea.
> Also, it is very common that users formulate queries without formulating
> their language and thus you need to "or" the user's queries through
> multiple languages (e.g. given by the browser).
>
> > Perhaps a solution would be a custom kind of "AggregatorAnalyzer"
that
> > would call other analyzers at runtime, based on the value of the lang
> > field. However, this solution could only be applied at index time,
when
> you
> > have the lang information (in the solrDocument to be indexed), but
when
> you
> > perform the query, you can not analyze the query text since you do not
> know
> > the language of the field you're querying (it was determined at
runtime
-
That's what I was saying, that at query time, the searched term will not
get analyzed by the right chain. When you search for a single language, at index time) and thus do not know what
operations to apply to the
query
(to reduce it to the same form as the indexed
values).
How would that look at query time?
could add that language as a query filter and
then you could apply the
right chain, but when searching in 2 or more (or no, meaning all)
languages
you are stuck.
>
> > I have also read another interesting analysis [6] on this problem that
> > elaborates on the complexities and limitations of each options.
(Ignore
> the
> > Rosette stuff mentioned there)
> >
> > I have been thinking about this for some time now, but the solution is
> > probably somewhere in between, finding an option that is acceptable
> while
> > not restrictive. I will probably also send a mail on the Solr list to
> get
> > some more input from there, but I get the feeling that whatever
> solution we
> > choose, it will most likely require the users to at least copy (or
even
edit) some files into some directories (configurations
and/or jars),
since
it does not seem to be easy/possible to do
everything on-the-fly,
programatically.
The only hard step is when changing the supported languages, I think.
In this case, when automatically generating the index, you need to warn
the user.
The admin UI should have a checkbox "use generated schema" or a textarea
for the schema.
(then
require reindexing).
hope it helps.
Yes, very helpful so far. I`m counting on your expertise with Lucene/Solr
on the details. My current approach is a practical one without previous
experience on the topic, so I`m still doing mostly guesswork in some
Thanks,
Eduard
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
paul
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs