3 ms·
The most specific criticism I have read of Meilisearch is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32940683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32940683. It has fo
by networked 4y ago
The most specific criticism I have read of Meilisearch is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32940683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32940683. It has four points: (1) words beyond 65535 are silently ignored (this is documented in https://docs.meilisearch.com/learn/advanced/known_limitations.html#maximum-number-of-words-per-attribute https://docs.meilisearch.com/learn/advanced/known_limitation... ); (2) the position of a matching word in a document non-optionally affects ranking; (3) to get the match information you must retrieve the entire attribute; (4) the meaning of PUT and POST is switched relative to RFC 7231.
Are points (2) through (4) true? Has any of the points been an issue for you in practice?
- Kerollmops 4y agoWhat’s funny is that (1) doesn’t look like a real limit when you know that the first Harry Potter book is nearly 77000 words. The recommended way is to split your documents by paragraph to increase relevancy, this way you can see the exact part that match. About (2) we will work on exposing two new ranking rules to be able to control that. For (3) I thought it was fixed. We decided to implement (4) the PUT and POST this way after looking how others were doing that.
- networked 4y agoThanks for your reply. I agree about (1). I have checked the datasets I have set up search for, and they either have no or under 1% of documents with more than 65535 words. (This is without any processing to break up the documents into sections.)