I have implemented elastic search for my search and have a good feeling it could easily be leveraged for finding trends , but its a the tip of my tongue how one would start to go about such a thing. Can anyone point me in the right direction or give me some keywords to look into further that might make this possible?
Depending on what you want to do exactly, it might be usefull to have a look at the Aggregations in Elasticsearch?
If you e.g. combine the Significant Terms Aggregation with a query for a given time frame, you will get back the terms, which are common in the given time frame, but rather unusual for the rest of the dataset (basically the trends in your dataset).
Related
Does elastic search utilize the frequency of a previously searched document. For example there are document A and document B. Both have similar score in terms of edit distances and other metrics however document A is very frequently searched and B is not. Will elastic search score A better than B. If not, how to acheive this?
Elasticsearch does not change score based on previous searches in its default scoring algorithm. In fact, this is really a question about Lucene scoring, since Elasticsearch uses it for all of the actual Search logic.
I think you may be looking at this from the wrong viewpoint. Users search with a query, and Elasticsearch recommends documents. You have no way of knowing if the document it recommended was valid or not just based on the search. I think your question should really be, "How can I tune Search relevance in an intelligent way based on user data?".
Now, there are a number of ways you can achieve this, but they require you to gather user data and build the model yourself. So unfortunately, there is no easy way.
However, I would recommend taking a look at https://www.elastic.co/app-search/, which offers a managed solution with lots of custom relevant tuning which may save you lots of time depending on your use case.
I need to build a search engine using Elasticsearch and the steps will be as following:
Search on the search engine with a search string.
The relevant results will display and I can click on these documents.
If I select a document, I will be redirected to another page where I will see all the details of the documents and will have an option "More Like This" (which will return documents similar to the selected document). I know that this is done using the MLT query.
Now my question is: Except for returning documents similar to the selected one, how can I also return at what percentage the documents are similar to the selected one?
There are a couple of things you can do.
using function_score query
more_like_this query is essentially a full text search, and it returns documents ordered by their relevance score. It could be possible to convert the score directly to a percentage, but it is not advised (here
and more specifically here).
Instead one can define a custom score with help of a function_score query, which can be designed so it returns a meaningful percentage.
This, of course, comes with additional cost of complexity, and the definition of "similarity" becomes more of an art than of science.
using dense_vector
One may opt to use the (yet experimental) dense_vector data type, which allows storing and comparing dense vectors (that is, arrays of numbers of fixed size). Here's an article that describes this approach very well: Text similarity search with vector fields.
In this case the definition of similarity is as precise as it can possibly be: a distance of two vectors in a multidimensional space, which can be computed via, for instance, cosine similarity.
However, such dense vectors have to be somehow computed, and the quality of said vectors will equal the quality of the similarity itself.
As the bottom line I must say that to make this work with Elasticsearch a bunch of computation and logic should be added outside, either in form of pre-computed models, or custom curated scoring algorithms. Elasticsearch out of the box does not seem to be a good percentage-similarity kind of deal.
Hope that helps!
If you're going the route of using semantic search via dense_vector, as Nikolay mentioned, I would recommend NBoost. NBoost has a good out-of-the-box systems for improving Elasticsearch results with SOTA models.
I want to implement a fuzzy search facility in the web-app i'm currently working on. The back-end is in Java, and it just so happens that the search engine that everyone recommends on here, Lucene, is coded in Java as well. I, however, am shying away from using it for several reasons:
I would feel accomplished building something of my own.
Lucene has a plethora of features that I don't see myself utilizing; i'd like to minimize bloat.
From what I understand, Lucene's fuzzy search implementation manually evaluates the edit distances of each term indexed. I feel the approach I want to take (detailed below), would be more efficient.
The data to-be-indexed could potentially be the entire set of nouns and pro-nouns in the English language, so you can see how Lucene's approach to fuzzy search makes me weary.
What I want to do is take an n-gram based approach to the problem: read and tokenize each item from the database and save them to disk in files named by a given n-gram and its location.
For example: let's assume n = 3 and my file-naming scheme is something like: [n-gram]_[location_of_n-gram_in_string].txt.
The file bea_0.txt would contain:
bear
beau
beacon
beautiful
beats by dre
When I receive a term to be searched, I can simply tokenize it in to n-grams, and use them along with their corresponding locations to read in to the corresponding n-gram files (if present). I can then perform any filtering operations (eliminating those not within a given length range, performing edit distance calculations, etc.) on this set of data instead of doing so for the entire dataset.
My question is... well I guess I have a couple of questions.
Has there been any improvements in Lucene's fuzzy search that I'm not aware of that would make my approach unnecessary?
Is this a good approach to implement fuzzy-search, (considering the set of data I'm dealing with), or is there something I'm oversimplifying/missing?
Lucene 3.x fuzzy query used to evaluate the Levenshtein distance between the queried term and every index term (brute-force approach). Given that this approach is rather inefficient, Lucene spellchecker used to rely on something similar to what you describe: Lucene would first search for terms with similar n-grams to the queried term and would then score these terms according to a String distance (such as Levenshtein or Jaro-Winckler).
However, this has changed a lot in Lucene 4.0 (an ALPHA preview has been released a few days ago): FuzzyQuery now uses a Levenshtein automaton to efficiently intersect the terms dictionary. This is so much faster that there is now a new direct spellchecker that doesn't require a dedicated index and directly intersects the terms dictionary with an automaton, similarly to FuzzyQuery.
For the record, as you are dealing with English corpus, Lucene (or Solr but I guess you could use them in vanilla lucene) has some Phonetic analyzers that might be useful (DoubleMetaphone, Metaphone, Soundex, RefinedSoundex, Caverphone)
Lucene 4.0 alpha was just released, many things are easier to customize now, so you could also build upon it an create a custom fuzzy search.
In any case Lucene has many years of performance improvements so you hardly would be able to achieve the same perf. Of course it might be good enough for your case...
A new project with some interesting requirements has arrived on my desk. I need to develop a searchable directory of businesses, with a focus on delivering relevant results based on arbitrary search queries. The businesses can be of any niche; there's no one area that is more represented than another.
When googling for things like "search algorithm" or "content relevance algorithm," all I get are references to Google's "Mystical Algorithm of the Old Gods" and SEO firms.
Does the relevance value of MySQL's full text Match() function have what it takes for the task? I've never used it, but I'm definitely going to do some testing. Also, since this will largely be a human edited directory, I can assume that we can add weighted factors like tagging and categories. What would be a good way to combine these factors with MySQL's Match() relevancy?
I'm also open to ideas that I've not discussed here.
For an example of information retrieval based techniques lookup TF-IDF or BM25.
For machine learning based techniques, lookup RankNet and its variants from MSR.
If you have hand edited data, have a look at Oracle text search. In one of my previous projects we had some good results.
I was not directly involved in the database setups, but I know that the results were very welcome. (Before this they had just keyword based search).
Use a search engine like Solr to index the data. You can still use MySql to hold the data, but for searches use a search engine.
When developing a database of articles in a Knowledge Base (for example) - what are the best ways to sort and display the most relevant answers to a users' question?
Would you use additional data such as keyword weighting based on whether previous users found the article of help, or do you find a simple keyword matching algorithm to be sufficient?
Perhaps the easiest and most naive approach that will give immediately useful results would be to implement *tf-idf:
Variations of the tf–idf weighting scheme are often used by search engines as a central tool in scoring and ranking a document's relevance given a user query. tf–idf can be successfully used for stop-words filtering in various subject fields including text summarization and classification.
In a recent related question of mine here I learned of an excellent free book on this topic which you can download or read online:
An Introduction to Information Retrieval
That's a hard question, and companies like Google are pushing a lot of efforts to address this question. Have a look at Google Enterprise Search Appliance or Exalead Enterprise Search.
Then, as a personal opinion, I don't think that any "naive" approach is going to improve much the result compared to naive keyword search and ordering by the number of views on the documents.
If you have the possibility to expose your knowledge base to the web, then, just do it, and let your favorite search engine handles the search for you.
I think the angle here is not the retrieval itself... its about scoring the relevence of the information retrieved (A more reactive and passive approach) which can be later used to improve the search engine.
I guess you can try -
knn on tfidf for retrieving information
Hand tagging these retrieved info a relevency score
Then regress that score to predict the score for an unknwon search result and sort it.
Just a thought...
The third point is actually based on Rocchio algorithm. You can see it here
A little more specificity of your exact problem would be good. There are a lot of different techniques that you can use. Many of these are driven by other pieces of data. You can of course use Lucene and build your own indexes. There are bindings for many languages to lucene. Moving up there is also the Solr project which is Lucene with a lot of tools and extra functionality around it. That may be more along the lines of what you are looking for.
Intent is tricky and most modern search engines rely on statistical intent to aid in the ordering of results. You can always have an is this article useful button and store the query text that leads to useful documents. You could then add a layer of information to the index to boost specific words or phrases and help them point to certain documents.
Some things to think about...How many documents? What is the average length? Are they updated frequently? What do users do with the documents? What does the spread of unique words to documents look like? (More simply is it easy to match a query with a specific document(s) based on common unique features.)
If it is on the web you can always make a google custom search engine that just searches your site although you may find this to be sub-optimal for a variety of reasons.
You can always start with a simple index and gradually make it more sophisticated by talking with users and capturing data.
keyword matching is not enough when dealing with questions, you need to understand intent, as joannes say a very hot topic in search