[Photon] Next steps

[Christoph Lingg]

I made a quick try, i did not get fuzzy to work.

> But then cross_fields is not the silver bullet, because you weigth *per field* (which is nice), but you also want to weight differently if the query was fuzzy or not, which you can't do with a multimatch
in my perception, cross_field is just a more elegant way (field specific boost) and more efficient way (no redundancy) of the collector. If fuzzy worked for instance I guess it would perfectly fit for the should branch here https://github.com/komoot/photon/blob/positivescoring/website/photon/app.py#L40

now you only boost raw hits on name and the rest, this could be done more specifically.

> If you want to work on search logic, you should work on the positive scoring branch.
that’s why i asked you in the first mail if you had some time tomorrow (maybe 15 min) to get coordinated, also thinking about how to contribute on thursday/friday.

Cheers,


> On 06/17/2014 06:23 PM, Peter K wrote:
>> There is no official answer so I'm not sure if this is correct. E.g. in
>> the code it does not look like there is a limit
>> 
>> https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/blob/9ed34b5a9e9769b1264bf04d9b9a674794515bc6/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/index/query/MultiMatchQueryBuilder.java
>> 
>> Also in this issue the talk about fuzziness (and link to another issue
>> which is now closed):
>> https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/pull/5005
>> 
>> Peter.
>> 
>>> On 06/17/2014 06:05 PM, Christoph Lingg wrote:
>>>> downside is apparently that fuzzy is not working, haven’t tried it
>>>> yet. Are you sure about this yohan?
>>> 
>>> Yes, that's why we eliminated this option quickly :/
>>> See for example
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/elasticsearch/mmdnRDsvvVA
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>