Hello All,
I am having an issue with AAF and sorting results of a search. Right
now, I have results being split onto pages of 10. The results are being
sorted alphabetically, but not across multiple pages - it’s just sorting
the 10 it pulls down on each page. I noticed another post from April
regarding this same issue (Sorting Search results - Ferret - Ruby-Forum)
where the issue was claimed to be resolved - so I figure I’m doing
something wrong - but I just can’t figure it out. Any help anyone can
give would be appreciated. Thanks!
Member.rb (model)
def self.full_text_search(q, options = {}, find_options = {})
return nil if q.nil? or q == “”
default_options = {:limit => 10, :page => 1}
options = default_options.merge options
options[:offset] = options[:limit] * (options.delete(:page).to_i-1)
results = Member.find_by_contents(q, options, find_options)
return [results.total_hits, results]
end
(controller)
sortable_fields = []
sortable_fields << Ferret::Search::SortField.new(‘company_name’)
@total, @members = Member.full_text_search(“Restaurants”, {:page =>
(params[:page]||1), :sort => sortable_fields}, {:include =>
[:categories, :discounts], :order => [“members.company_name ASC”]})
Hey…
I’ve got the same problem, sorting isn’t working the way you would
think… I guess thats
a bug in ferret, nothing AAF can do about… there’s a ticket and I guess
David is aware
of that… lets see when a new version of ferret will be released.
Ben
Thanks Ben. Wish I knew it was a bug, otherwise I wouldn’t have wasted
everyone’s time reading over all that console output!
Benjamin K. wrote:
Hey…
I’ve got the same problem, sorting isn’t working the way you would
think… I guess thats
a bug in ferret, nothing AAF can do about… there’s a ticket and I guess
David is aware
of that… lets see when a new version of ferret will be released.
Ben
I’m also facing this problem here. It’s been driving me crazy since
yesterday. I also hope it’s a bug and will be fixed soon.
VinÃcius
Benjamin K. wrote:
Hey…
I’ve got the same problem, sorting isn’t working the way you would
think… I guess thats
a bug in ferret, nothing AAF can do about… there’s a ticket and I guess
David is aware
of that… lets see when a new version of ferret will be released.
Ben
OK. I’m trying to start this fresh, but I guess I was never sorting the
results via AAF to begin with. Does anyone know how to sort the ferret
results? Here are some things I have tried (console output)
members = Member.find_by_contents(“bank”, {:sort => “company_name”, :limit => 50}, {})
… [members array displayed]…
members.each {|member| puts member.company_name}
SouthTrust Bank
Colonial Bank
SunTrust Bank
Citrus & Chemical Bank
Bank of America
Citizens Bank & Trust
Platinum Bank
CenterState Bank of Florida
Riverside National Bank
AmSouth Bank
Community National Bank
Washington Mutual Bank
Providence Bank
Olde Cypress Community Bank
sort_fields = []
=> []
sort_fields = Ferret::Search::SortField.new(‘company_name’)
=> company_name:
members = Member.find_by_contents(“bank”, {:sort => sort_fields, :limit => 50}, {})
members.each {|member| puts member.company_name}
SouthTrust Bank
Colonial Bank
SunTrust Bank
Citrus & Chemical Bank
Bank of America
Citizens Bank & Trust
Platinum Bank
CenterState Bank of Florida
Riverside National Bank
AmSouth Bank
Community National Bank
Washington Mutual Bank
Providence Bank
Olde Cypress Community Bank
members = Member.find_by_contents(“bank”, {:limit => 50}, {:order => “company_name”})
members.each {|member| puts member.company_name}
AmSouth Bank
Bank of America
CenterState Bank of Florida
Citizens Bank & Trust
Citrus & Chemical Bank
Colonial Bank
Community National Bank
Olde Cypress Community Bank
Platinum Bank
Providence Bank
Riverside National Bank
SouthTrust Bank
SunTrust Bank
Washington Mutual Bank
(Good, except for the fact that I only want 10 at a time)…
members = Member.find_by_contents(“bank”, {:limit => 10}, {:order => “company_name”})
members.each {|member| puts member.company_name}
AmSouth Bank
Bank of America
CenterState Bank of Florida
Citizens Bank & Trust
Citrus & Chemical Bank
Colonial Bank
Platinum Bank
Riverside National Bank
SouthTrust Bank
SunTrust Bank
(I have also tried the line below this with :sort => sort_fields AND
:sort => “company_name” with no luck!)
members = Member.find_by_contents(“bank”, {:limit => 10, :offset => 10}, {:order => “company_name”})
members.each {|member| puts member.company_name}
Community National Bank
Olde Cypress Community Bank
Providence Bank
Washington Mutual Bank
Now I know thats the same problem I described above, but I will settle
for any help I can get !!! I’ve tried Member.ferret_index.search(“bank”,
:sort => … also tried Member.ferret_index.search_each(“bank”, :sort
=> … Is this even possible to do what I need?
I cant pass the :order => “company_name ASC” as a find_option because by
the time it goes to AR to get the records, it has already returned the
IDs for the 10 records so I’m only ordering those 10 records and not the
entire set of 14. PLEASE HELP!!! Thanks!
Another question regarding the same subject.
How do you sort by relevance? Or is that the default behavior? Speaking
of that, what is the default behavior if you don’t give any order
preference?
Thanks,
Ray
Raymond O’connor schrieb:
Another question regarding the same subject.
How do you sort by relevance? Or is that the default behavior? Speaking
of that, what is the default behavior if you don’t give any order
preference?
hey …
as you write… sorting by relevance is the default behaviour… btw…
there are no bugs when
sorting the results on integer values, the problem seems to be purely
text-sorting related.
so, ordering by relevance is working …
Ben
sorting by a column, or by score:
if ('date' == sort)
options.merge!({ :sort => Ferret::Search::SortField.new
(‘search_date’, :reverse => :true) })
else
options.merge!({ :sort => Ferret::Search::SortField::SCORE })
end
hope this helps.
John
On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John B. wrote:
John
Also, if you want to sort by a column, it can’t be tokenized
acts_as_ferret :fields => { …
:search_date => {:term_vectors
=> :no, :index => :untokenized }
…
},
Hey…
just checked back with david about that sorting issue… The problem
on my index was, that you cannot sort by fields that you’ve indexed.
you need to store the fields untokenized if you want to sort be them.
maybe that’ll fix your problem as well?
Ben
Benjamin K. wrote:
Hey…
just checked back with david about that sorting issue… The problem
on my index was, that you cannot sort by fields that you’ve indexed.
you need to store the fields untokenized if you want to sort be them.
maybe that’ll fix your problem as well?
Ben
Yeah that did it! Thanks for all the help!
Sean Osh wrote:
Benjamin K. wrote:
Hey…
just checked back with david about that sorting issue… The problem
on my index was, that you cannot sort by fields that you’ve indexed.
you need to store the fields untokenized if you want to sort be them.
maybe that’ll fix your problem as well?
Ben
Yeah that did it! Thanks for all the help!
Hi,
I have a field named ‘title’.
If I tokenize this field then I’m able to search it by keywords but not
able to sort it. However if I untokenize so that sorting works, then
the search fails.
Its a dilemma but I’m sure there must be some solution to this problem,
right?
It can’t be that for any particular field I have to choose between
whether I want to search it or sort by it.
Thanks.
Jen
On Feb 9, 2007, at 6:28 PM, jen wrote:
It can’t be that for any particular field I have to choose between
whether I want to search it or sort by it.
What about
FieldInfo.new(:title, :index => :yes, :store => yes)
This should store the field in it’s original format while indexing it
tokenized.
If this doesn’t work, I’d consider it a bug since the documentation
suggests that :store and :index are independent options. At least, it
doesn’t state otherwise. Setting a certain value for :store should
not conflict or interfere with any value for :index.
If this is indeed not working as expected, you could use two fields,
one which you store untokenized (for sorting) and one which you don’t
store but index tokenized. That’d wouldn’t be an elegant solution but
a feasible one.
Cheers,
Andreas
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 06:57:56PM +0100, Andreas K. wrote:
problem,
tokenized.
If this doesn’t work, I’d consider it a bug since the documentation
suggests that :store and :index are independent options. At least, it
doesn’t state otherwise. Setting a certain value for :store should
not conflict or interfere with any value for :index.
:store does not interfere with the value given for :index, but as I
understand the docs, storing a field’s contents doesn’t help with
sorting either. From the docs only the :index option influences the
ability to sort.
Imho storing a field’s content is completely independent from
(un)tokenized indexing, and the sorting is done on the indexed values,
not on the stored ones.
If this is indeed not working as expected, you could use two fields,
one which you store untokenized (for sorting) and one which you don’t
store but index tokenized. That’d wouldn’t be an elegant solution but
a feasible one.
That’s the common solution. There’s no need to use :store => :yes for
any of these fields, unless you have any use for the stored original
field content.
so you’d have:
the field for search
FieldInfo.new(:title, :index => :yes, :store => whatever you want)
the field for sorting, leaving out any info not needed for sorting
FieldInfo.new(:sortable_title, :index => :untokenized, :store => :no,
:term_vector => :no)
Jens
–
webit! Gesellschaft für neue Medien mbH www.webit.de
Dipl.-Wirtschaftsingenieur Jens Krämer [email protected]
Schnorrstraße 76 Tel +49 351 46766 0
D-01069 Dresden Fax +49 351 46766 66