761: Integrate deserr r=irevoire a=loiclec
1. `Setting<T>` now implements `DeserializeFromValue`
2. The settings now store ranking rules as strongly typed `Criterion` instead of `String`, since the validation of the ranking rules will be done on meilisearch's side from now on
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
759: Change primary key inference error messages r=Kerollmops a=dureuill
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Milli part of https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3301
## What does this PR do?
- Change error message strings
## PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
- [x] Does this PR fix an existing issue, or have you listed the changes applied in the PR description (and why they are needed)?
- [x] Have you read the contributing guidelines?
- [x] Have you made sure that the title is accurate and descriptive of the changes?
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
733: Avoid a prefix-related worst-case scenario in the proximity criterion r=loiclec a=loiclec
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Somewhat fixes (until merged into meilisearch) https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3118
## What does this PR do?
When a query ends with a word and a prefix, such as:
```
word pr
```
Then we first determine whether `pre` *could possibly* be in the proximity prefix database before querying it. There are then three possibilities:
1. `pr` is not in any prefix cache because it is not the prefix of many words. We don't query the proximity prefix database. Instead, we list all the word derivations of `pre` through the FST and query the regular proximity databases.
2. `pr` is in the prefix cache but cannot be found in the proximity prefix databases. **In this case, we partially disable the proximity ranking rule for the pair `word pre`.** This is done as follows:
1. Only find the documents where `word` is in proximity to `pre` **exactly** (no derivations)
2. Otherwise, assume that their proximity in all the documents in which they coexist is >= 8
3. `pr` is in the prefix cache and can be found in the proximity prefix databases. In this case we simply query the proximity prefix databases.
Note that if a prefix is longer than 2 bytes, then it cannot be in the proximity prefix databases. Also, proximities larger than 4 are not present in these databases either. Therefore, the impact on relevancy is:
1. For common prefixes of one or two letters: we no longer distinguish between proximities from 4 to 8
2. For common prefixes of more than two letters: we no longer distinguish between any proximities
3. For uncommon prefixes: nothing changes
Regarding (1), it means that these two documents would be considered equally relevant according to the proximity rule for the query `heard pr` (IF `pr` is the prefix of more than 200 words in the dataset):
```json
[
{ "text": "I heard there is a faster proximity criterion" },
{ "text": "I heard there is a faster but less relevant proximity criterion" }
]
```
Regarding (2), it means that two documents would be considered equally relevant according to the proximity rule for the query "faster pro":
```json
[
{ "text": "I heard there is a faster but less relevant proximity criterion" }
{ "text": "I heard there is a faster proximity criterion" },
]
```
But the following document would be considered more relevant than the two documents above:
```json
{ "text": "I heard there is a faster swimmer who is competing in the pro section of the competition " }
```
Note, however, that this change of behaviour only occurs when using the set-based version of the proximity criterion. In cases where there are fewer than 1000 candidate documents when the proximity criterion is called, this PR does not change anything.
---
## Performance
I couldn't use the existing search benchmarks to measure the impact of the PR, but I did some manual tests with the `songs` benchmark dataset.
```
1. 10x 'a':
- 640ms ⟹ 630ms = no significant difference
2. 10x 'b':
- set-based: 4.47s ⟹ 7.42 = bad, ~2x regression
- dynamic: 1s ⟹ 870 ms = no significant difference
3. 'Someone I l':
- set-based: 250ms ⟹ 12 ms = very good, x20 speedup
- dynamic: 21ms ⟹ 11 ms = good, x2 speedup
4. 'billie e':
- set-based: 623ms ⟹ 2ms = very good, x300 speedup
- dynamic: ~4ms ⟹ 4ms = no difference
5. 'billie ei':
- set-based: 57ms ⟹ 20ms = good, ~2x speedup
- dynamic: ~4ms ⟹ ~2ms. = no significant difference
6. 'i am getting o'
- set-based: 300ms ⟹ 60ms = very good, 5x speedup
- dynamic: 30ms ⟹ 6ms = very good, 5x speedup
7. 'prologue 1 a 1:
- set-based: 3.36s ⟹ 120ms = very good, 30x speedup
- dynamic: 200ms ⟹ 30ms = very good, 6x speedup
8. 'prologue 1 a 10':
- set-based: 590ms ⟹ 18ms = very good, 30x speedup
- dynamic: 82ms ⟹ 35ms = good, ~2x speedup
```
Performance is often significantly better, but there is also one regression in the set-based implementation with the query `b b b b b b b b b b`.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
732: Interpret synonyms as phrases r=loiclec a=loiclec
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes (when merged into meilisearch) https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3125
## What does this PR do?
We now map multi-word synonyms to phrases instead of loose words. Such that the request:
```
btw I am going to nyc soon
```
is interpreted as (when the synonym interpretation is chosen for both `btw` and `nyc`):
```
"by the way" I am going to "New York City" soon
```
instead of:
```
by the way I am going to New York City soon
```
This prevents queries containing multi-word synonyms to exceed to word length limit and degrade the search performance.
In terms of relevancy, there is a debate to have. I personally think this could be considered an improvement, since it would be strange for a user to search for:
```
good DIY project
```
and have a result such as:
```
{
"text": "whether it is a good project to do, you'll have to decide for yourself"
}
```
However, for synonyms such as `NYC -> New York City`, then we will stop matching documents where `New York` is separated from `City`. This is however solvable by adding an additional mapping: `NYC -> New York`.
## Performance
With the old behaviour, some long search requests making heavy uses of synonyms could take minutes to be executed. This is no longer the case, these search requests now take an average amount of time to be resolved.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
736: Update charabia r=curquiza a=ManyTheFish
Update Charabia to the last version.
> We are now Romanizing Chinese characters into Pinyin.
> Note that we keep the accent because they are in fact never typed directly by the end-user, moreover, changing an accent leads to a different Chinese character, and I don't have sufficient knowledge to forecast the impact of removing accents in this context.
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
709: Optimise the `ExactWords` sub-criterion within `Exactness` r=loiclec a=loiclec
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes (partially) https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3116
## What does this PR do?
1. Reduces the algorithmic complexity of finding the documents containing N exact words from something that is exponential to something that is polynomial.
2. Cache intermediary results between different calls to the `exactness` criterion.
## Performance Results
On the `smol_songs.csv` dataset, a request containing 10 common words now takes about 60ms instead of 5 seconds to execute. For example, this is the case with this (admittedly nonsensical) request: `Rock You Hip Hop Folk World Country Electronic Love The`.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
Displays log message in the form:
```
[2022-12-21T09:19:42Z INFO milli::update::index_documents::enrich] Primary key was not specified in index. Inferred to 'id'
```
742: Add a "Criterion implementation strategy" parameter to Search r=irevoire a=loiclec
Add a parameter to search requests which determines the implementation strategy of the criteria. This can be either `set-based`, `iterative`, or `dynamic` (ie choosing between set-based or iterative at search time). See https://github.com/meilisearch/milli/issues/755 for more context about this change.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
747: Soft-deletion computation no longer depends on the mapsize r=irevoire a=dureuill
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Related to https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3231: After removing `--max-index-size`, the `mapsize` will always be unrelated to the actual max size the user wants for their DB, so it doesn't make sense to use these values any longer.
This implements solution 2.3 from https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3231#issuecomment-1348628824
## What does this PR do?
### User-visible
- Soft-deleted are no longer deleted when there is less than 10% of the mapsize available or when they take more than 10% of the mapsize
- Instead, they are deleted when they are more soft deleted than regular documents, or when they take more than 1GiB disk space (estimated).
### Implementation standpoint
1. Adds a `DeletionStrategy` struct to replace the boolean `disable_soft_deletion` that we had up until now. This enum allows us to specify that we want "always hard", "always soft", or to use the dynamic soft-deletion strategy (default).
2. Uses the current strategy when deleting documents, with the new heuristics being used in the `DeletionStrategy::Dynamic` variant.
3. Updates the tests to use the appropriate DeletionStrategy whenever needed (one of `AlwaysHard` or `AlwaysSoft` depending on the test)
Note to reviewers: this PR is optimized for a commit-by-commit review.
## PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
- [x] Does this PR fix an existing issue, or have you listed the changes applied in the PR description (and why they are needed)?
- [x] Have you read the contributing guidelines?
- [x] Have you made sure that the title is accurate and descriptive of the changes?
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!
Co-authored-by: Louis Dureuil <louis@meilisearch.com>
Co-authored-by: Tamo <tamo@meilisearch.com>
743: Fix finite pagination with placeholder search r=Kerollmops a=ManyTheFish
this bug is reproducible on real datasets and is hard to isolate in a simple test.
related to: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3200
poke `@curquiza`
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
728: Add some integration tests on the sort criterion r=ManyTheFish a=loiclec
This is simply an integration test ensuring that the sort criterion works properly.
However, only one version of the algorithm is tested here (the iterative one). To test the version that uses the facet DB, one has to manually set the `CANDIDATES_THRESHOLD` constant to `0`. I have done that and ensured that the test still succeeds. However, in the future, we will probably want to have an option to force which algorithm is used at runtime, for testing purposes.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic.lecrenier@me.com>
737: Fix typo initial candidates computation r=Kerollmops a=ManyTheFish
When `Typo` criterion was after a different criterion than `Words` and the previous criterion wasn't returning any candidates at the first iteration of the bucket sort, then the `initial_candidates` were lost.
Now, `Typo`ensure to keep the `initial_candidates` between iterations.
related to https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3200#issuecomment-1345179578
related to https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3228
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
