Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add warning on CALL SUGGEST with morphology=smth #2320

Closed
5 tasks
donhardman opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed
5 tasks

Add warning on CALL SUGGEST with morphology=smth #2320

donhardman opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@donhardman
Copy link
Contributor

Bug Description:

We utilize bigrams or trigrams in our CALL SUGGEST feature, which could potentially be the root cause of the problem we're observing. When the lemmatizer is enabled, it appears to be producing some unusual or incorrect word recommendations, as shown in the table below:

| flase | 4 | 1 |
| pease | 4 | 1 |
| nurse | 4 | 1 |
| jwise | 4 | 1 |
| nouse | 4 | 1 |
| rense | 4 | 1 |
| onuse | 4 | 1 |
| dbase | 4 | 1 |
| hpuse | 4 | 1 |
| dxuse | 4 | 1 |
| argse | 4 | 1 |
| twise | 4 | 1 |
+---------+----------+-------+

We should consider adding a warning or notification to alert users about this potential issue. It's likely that the lemmatizer is unable to distinguish between lemmas and regular words when CALL SUGGEST retrieves suggestions from the dictionary. However, we may be able to differentiate them based on the equal sign (=) or other indicators.

Manticore Search Version:

Latest dev version

Operating System Version:

Ubuntu Jammy

Have you tried the latest development version?

None

Internal Checklist:

To be completed by the assignee. Check off tasks that have been completed or are not applicable.

  • Implementation completed
  • Tests developed
  • Documentation updated
  • Documentation reviewed
  • Changelog updated
@manticoresearch
Copy link
Contributor

Pls provide the full query.

@sanikolaev
Copy link
Collaborator

As discussed, there's probably no problem here.

@donhardman
Copy link
Contributor Author

As discussed and validated earlier, we concluded that this is not an issue. It was a misunderstanding of the outputs, which appeared incorrect due to user errors. However, the outputs are actually correct. We are closing this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants