The searchable plugin seems to default to only 10 results. How do I change this to return all results?
# Bill
I'm looking for something like this:
DomainClass.search("This is the query", [max:every_last_one_of_em])
I could put a limit of like 40 and probably be fine, but the purpose of this search is to give a human a list of similar things to disambiguate, so if some of the things are missing the stupid humans will likely use "assumption" to get the wrong answers.
From the documentation at: http://grails.org/Searchable+Plugin+-+Methods+-+search
Options affecting the return value
max - The maximum number of results to return (default 10). Only used with result: "searchResult"
So it seems you'll need to pass in a Map of options to your search call, like:
DomainClass.search( "This is the query", [max:1000] )
Note, having an "unlimited" search result is a Bad Idea(TM). Figure out the max you want to handle and use that as your limit.
I would suggest having a "large" limit, if you must. If you get back that many, then do a further query to find out how many there are (there is an option for that too), and display a message to the user that "This is an incomplete set, please further restrict your view" or some such.
If you absolutely MUST show them all. Then use that count query (it's an option in the page I listed above), then resend the search using that count as the max.
Mikey to make the search return all results just remove the max field from the defaultMethodOptions.
You can find this declaration in Configuration -> Searchable.groovy
defaultMethodOptions = [
search: [reload: false, escape: true, offset: 0, max: 10, defaultOperator: "and"],
suggestQuery: [userFriendly: true]
]
Related
hope someone can help me with this.
I've managed to return search autocomplete results and for the most part everything is ok and results are almost restricted to the area but ocassionaly I get areas outside of the radius when non of the queried letters match the area.
However I want to apply restrictions to display results that are only in the specified area/radius. I've tried applying strictbounds parameter, but strictbounds combined with types : 'address' is just showing no results or single result. When I remove types the results automatically show only points of interest which I don't need. Only need addresses.
Anyone have any idea whats wrong in this?
Uri uri = Uri.https("maps.googleapis.com", "maps/api/place/autocomplete/json", {
"input": query,
"location": poznanLocation,
"language": "pl",
"radius": searchRadius,
"key": apiKey,
"bounds": "52.22,15.33|53.13,17.36",
"strictbounds": "true",
"types": "address",
"sessiontoken": _sessionToken,
});
Are you sure there are suitable results that should be returned?
Depending on the values of location and radius(*), there may be no suitable results left after adding both strictbounds and types=address.
If results are returned when removing strictbounds, are they strictly within the region defined by location and radius? If they are, please file a bug. Otherwise, that is precisely the intended behavior of strictbounds.
(*) The Place Autocomplete web service will ignore the bounds parameter, because it is not supported.
I am trying to get the price items for performance block storage that are generic (not specific to a certain datacenter). I can see that these have the locationGroupId set to blank or null, but I can't seem to get the objectFilter to work with that, the query returns nothing. If I omit the locationGroupId filter I get a result that contain both location-specific and non-location specific prices.
GET /rest/v3.1/SoftLayer_Product_Package/759/getItemPrices.json?objectMask=mask[locationGroupId,id,categories,item]&objectFilter={"itemPrices":{"categories":{"categoryCode":{"operation":"performance_storage_space"}},"item":{"keyName":{"operation":"$=GBs"}},"locationGroupId":{"operation":"is null"}}}
I am guessing there is something wrong with the object filter, any ideas?
If I filter on locationGroupId 509 it works:
/rest/v3.1/SoftLayer_Product_Package/759/getItemPrices.json?objectMask=mask[locationGroupId,id,categories,item]&objectFilter={"itemPrices":{"categories":{"categoryCode":{"operation":"performance_storage_space"}},"item":{"keyName":{"operation":"$=GBs"}},"locationGroupId":{"operation":509}}}
The reason it the first query didn't work while the second did was that I used the command "curl -sg" to do the request. While that eliminates the need to escape the {}[] characters - it also turns off escaping other characters correctly in the URL - like the space in "is null". Changing that to "is%20null" solves the issue.
I am posting this as the answer as I find it likely for others to encounter this problem.
I'm trying to create filters for a search on an Android app where a specific field in Algolia must exactly match the given String in order to come up as a hit. For example if Algolia has a field like "foo" and I only want to return hits where "foo" is equal to "bar", then I would expect that I would have to use a line of code like this:
query.setFilters("foo: \"bar\"");
Any guesses as to why this isn't working like I see in the examples or how to do so?
Ah, I thought that attributesForFaceting was done by setting what was searchable or not. It was on a different page within the dashboard than I was previously using. Thanks #pixelastic.
How does one use Firebase to do basic auto-completion/text preview?
For example, imagine a blog backed by Firebase where the blogger can tag posts with tags. As the blogger is tagging a new post, it would be helpful if they could see all currently-existing tags that matched the first few keystrokes they've entered. So if "blog," "black," "blazing saddles," and "bulldogs" were tags, if the user types "bl" they get the first three but not "bulldogs."
My initial thought was that we could set the tag with the priority of the tag, and use startAt, such that our query would look something like:
fb.child('tags').startAt('bl').limitToFirst(5).once('value', function(snap) {
console.log(snap.val())
});
But this would also return "bulldog" as one of the results (not the end of the world, but not the best either). Using startAt('bl').endAt('bl') returns no results. Is there another way to accomplish this?
(I know that one option is that this is something we could use a search server, like ElasticSearch, for -- see https://www.firebase.com/blog/2014-01-02-queries-part-two.html -- but I'd love to keep as much in Firebase as possible.)
Edit
As Kato suggested, here's a concrete example. We have 20,000 users, with their names stored as such:
/users/$userId/name
Oftentimes, users will be looking up another user by name. As a user is looking up their buddy, we'd like a drop-down to populate a list of users whose names start with the letters that the searcher has inputted. So if I typed in "Ja" I would expect to see "Jake Heller," "jake gyllenhaal," "Jack Donaghy," etc. in the drop-down.
I know this is an old topic, but it's still relevant. Based on Neil's answer above, you more easily search doing the following:
fb.child('tags').startAt(queryString).endAt(queryString + '\uf8ff').limit(5)
See Firebase Retrieving Data.
The \uf8ff character used in the query above is a very high code point
in the Unicode range. Because it is after most regular characters in
Unicode, the query matches all values that start with queryString.
As inspired by Kato's comments -- one way to approach this problem is to set the priority to the field you want to search on for your autocomplete and use startAt(), limit(), and client-side filtering to return only the results that you want. You'll want to make sure that the priority and the search term is lower-cased, since Firebase is case-sensitive.
This is a crude example to demonstrate this using the Users example I laid out in the question:
For a search for "ja", assuming all users have their priority set to the lowercased version of the user's name:
fb.child('users').
startAt('ja'). // The user-inputted search
limitToFirst(20).
once('value', function(snap) {
for(key in snap.val()){
if(snap.val()[key].indexOf('ja') === 0) {
console.log(snap.val()[key];
}
}
});
This should only return the names that actually begin with "ja" (even if Firebase actually returns names alphabetically after "ja").
I choose to use limitToFirst(20) to keep the response size small and because, realistically, you'll never need more than 20 for the autocomplete drop-down. There are probably better ways to do the filtering, but this should at least demonstrate the concept.
Hope this helps someone! And it's quite possible the Firebase guys have a better answer.
(Note that this is very limited -- if someone searches for the last name, it won't return what they're looking for. Hence the "best" answer is probably to use a search backend with something like Kato's Flashlight.)
It strikes me that there's a much simpler and more elegant way of achieving this than client side filtering or hacking Elastic.
By converting the search key into its' Unicode value and storing that as the priority, you can search by startAt() and endAt() by incrementing the value by one.
var start = "ABA";
var pad = "AAAAAAAAAA";
start += pad.substring(0, pad.length - start.length);
var blob = new Blob([start]);
var reader = new FileReader();
reader.onload = function(e) {
var typedArray = new Uint8Array(e.target.result);
var array = Array.prototype.slice.call(typedArray);
var priority = parseInt(array.join(""));
console.log("Priority of", start, "is:", priority);
}
reader.readAsArrayBuffer(blob);
You can then limit your search priority to the key "ABB" by incrementing the last charCode by one and doing the same conversion:
var limit = String.fromCharCode(start.charCodeAt(start.length -1) +1);
limit = start.substring(0, start.length -1) +limit;
"ABA..." to "ABB..." ends up with priorities of:
Start: 65666565656565650000
End: 65666665656565650000
Simples!
Based on Jake and Matt's answer, updated version for sdk 3.1. '.limit' no longer works:
firebaseDb.ref('users')
.orderByChild('name')
.startAt(query)
.endAt(`${query}\uf8ff`)
.limitToFirst(5)
.on('child_added', (child) => {
console.log(
{
id: child.key,
name: child.val().name
}
)
})
Am hoping someone with enough insight into the inner workings of Lucene might be able to point me in the right direction =)
I'll skip most of the surrounding irellevant code, and cut right to the chase. I have a Lucene index, to which I am adding the following field to the index (variables replaced by their literal values):
document.Add( new Field("Typenummer", "E5CEB501A244410EB1FFC4761F79E7B7",
Field.Store.YES , Field.Index.UN_TOKENIZED));
Later, when I search my index (using other types of queries), I am able to verify that this field does indeed appear in my index - like when looping through all Fields returned by Document.GetFields()
Field: Typenummer, Value: E5CEB501A244410EB1FFC4761F79E7B7
So far so good :-)
Now the real problem is - why can I not use a TermQuery to search against this value and actually get a result.
This code produces 0 hits:
// Returns 0 hits
bq.Add( new TermQuery( new Term( "Typenummer",
"E5CEB501A244410EB1FFC4761F79E7B7" ) ), BooleanClause.Occur.MUST );
But if I switch this to a WildcardQuery (with no wildcards), I get the 1 hit I expect.
// returns the 1 hit I expect
bq.Add( new WildcardQuery( new Term( "Typenummer",
"E5CEB501A244410EB1FFC4761F79E7B7" ) ), BooleanClause.Occur.MUST );
I've checked field lengths, I've checked that I am using the same Analyzer and so on and I am still on square 1 as to why this is.
Can anyone point me in a direction I should be looking?
I finally figured out what was going on. I'm expanding the tags for this question as it, much to my surprise, actually turned out to be an issue with the CMS this particular problem exists in. In summary, the problem came down to this:
The field is stored UN_TOKENIZED, meaning Lucene will store it excactly "as-is"
The BooleanQuery I pasted snippets from gets sent to the Sitecore SearchManager inside a PreparedQuery wrapper
The behaviour I expected from this was, that my query (having already been prepared) would go - unaltered - to the Lucene API
Turns out I was wrong. It passes through a RewriteQuery method that copies my entire set of nested queries as-is, with one exception - all the Term arguments are passed through a LowercaseStrategy()
As I indexed an UPPERCASE Term (UN_TOKENIZED), and Sitecore changes my PreparedQuery to lowercase - 0 results are returned
Am not going to start an argument of whether this is "by design" or "by design flaw" implementation of the Lucene Wrapper API - I'll just note that rewriting my query when using the PreparedQuery overload is... to me... unexpected ;-)
Further teachings from this; storing the field as TOKENIZED will eliminate this problem too, as the StandardAnalyzer by default will lowercase all tokens.