- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:49:37 -0700
- To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikEus1UYHrHePnIGRiVjc-95MHjRb6GGelEOY2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Some quick comments. I'll point some of our FTS experts at this as well. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com> wrote: > I would like to confirm the requirements for posting list and inverted > index support in IndexedDB. To that extent, here is a short list ordered by > importance. Please let me know if I have missed anything important. > > 1. Store sorted runs of terms and their occurrences in documents along with > a payload. > a. Each occurrence is identified as some numeric value. > b. The payload is an opaque string value. > 2. Look up a term to obtain its occurrences. > a. Look up produces a cursor, each value of which is the document ID > where the term occurs and the corresponding payload > b. Full power of cursors as available in IndexedDB is present, i.e., > KeyRange and direction. > 3. An inverted index could be linked to an object store, in which case, it > is possible to look up objects using the inverted index. > 4. When an object is removed from the object store linked to an inverted > index, no automatic change management applies to inverted index. In other > words, the inverted index is application managed. > I'm still not sure I agree with application managed Indexes in the spec at all (see other threads). > 5. Find co-occurrence of terms. > a. This would bring back the join feature that was present in earlier > versions of the spec [1], although in a different API form than earlier. > Would it be practical to use inverted indexes without a join feature? We should probably try to be consistent > 6. Store lexicon for IDF-type statistics > a. term-level statistics > > I am not sure if there is any point in specifying performance and > efficiency goals in the spec. > Agreed. > > Nikunj > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-WebSimpleDB-20090929/#entity-join >
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 16:50:28 UTC