Most of these are calling clone when the struct supports Copy.
Many are using & and &mut on `self` when the function they are called
from already has an immutable or mutable borrow so this isn't needed.
I tried to stay away from actual changes or places where I'd have to
name fresh variables.
662: Enhance word splitting strategy r=ManyTheFish a=akki1306
# Pull Request
## Related issue
Fixes#648
## What does this PR do?
- [split_best_frequency](55d889522b/milli/src/search/query_tree.rs (L282-L301)) to use frequency of word pairs near together with proximity value of 1 instead of considering the frequency of individual words. Word pairs having max frequency are considered.
## 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: Akshay Kulkarni <akshayk.gj@gmail.com>
635: Use an unstable algorithm for `grenad::Sorter` when possible r=Kerollmops a=loiclec
# Pull Request
## What does this PR do?
Use an unstable algorithm to sort the internal vector used by `grenad::Sorter` whenever possible to speed up indexing.
In practice, every time the merge function creates a `RoaringBitmap`, we use an unstable sort. For every other merge function, such as `keep_first`, `keep_last`, etc., a stable sort is used.
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic@meilisearch.com>
587: Word prefix pair proximity docids indexation refactor r=Kerollmops a=loiclec
# Pull Request
## What does this PR do?
Refactor the code of `WordPrefixPairProximityDocIds` to make it much faster, fix a bug, and add a unit test.
## Why is it faster?
Because we avoid using a sorter to insert the (`word1`, `prefix`, `proximity`) keys and their associated bitmaps, and thus we don't have to sort a potentially very big set of data. I have also added a couple of other optimisations:
1. reusing allocations
2. using a prefix trie instead of an array of prefixes to get all the prefixes of a word
3. inserting directly into the database instead of putting the data in an intermediary grenad when possible. Also avoid checking for pre-existing values in the database when we know for certain that they do not exist.
## What bug was fixed?
When reindexing, the `new_prefix_fst_words` prefixes may look like:
```
["ant", "axo", "bor"]
```
which we group by first letter:
```
[["ant", "axo"], ["bor"]]
```
Later in the code, if we have the word2 "axolotl", we try to find which subarray of prefixes contains its prefixes. This check is done with `word2.starts_with(subarray_prefixes[0])`, but `"axolotl".starts_with("ant")` is false, and thus we wrongly think that there are no prefixes in `new_prefix_fst_words` that are prefixes of `axolotl`.
## StrStrU8Codec
I had to change the encoding of `StrStrU8Codec` to make the second string null-terminated as well. I don't think this should be a problem, but I may have missed some nuances about the impacts of this change.
## Requests when reviewing this PR
I have explained what the code does in the module documentation of `word_pair_proximity_prefix_docids`. It would be nice if someone could read it and give their opinion on whether it is a clear explanation or not.
I also have a couple questions regarding the code itself:
- Should we clean up and factor out the `PrefixTrieNode` code to try and make broader use of it outside this module? For now, the prefixes undergo a few transformations: from FST, to array, to prefix trie. It seems like it could be simplified.
- I wrote a function called `write_into_lmdb_database_without_merging`. (1) Are we okay with such a function existing? (2) Should it be in `grenad_helpers` instead?
## Benchmark Results
We reduce the time it takes to index about 8% in most cases, but it varies between -3% and -20%.
```
group indexing_main_ce90fc62 indexing_word-prefix-pair-proximity-docids-refactor_cbad2023
----- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
indexing/-geo-delete-facetedNumber-facetedGeo-searchable- 1.00 1893.0±233.03µs ? ?/sec 1.01 1921.2±260.79µs ? ?/sec
indexing/-movies-delete-facetedString-facetedNumber-searchable- 1.05 9.4±3.51ms ? ?/sec 1.00 9.0±2.14ms ? ?/sec
indexing/-movies-delete-facetedString-facetedNumber-searchable-nested- 1.22 18.3±11.42ms ? ?/sec 1.00 15.0±5.79ms ? ?/sec
indexing/-songs-delete-facetedString-facetedNumber-searchable- 1.00 41.4±4.20ms ? ?/sec 1.28 53.0±13.97ms ? ?/sec
indexing/-wiki-delete-searchable- 1.00 285.6±18.12ms ? ?/sec 1.03 293.1±16.09ms ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing geo_point 1.03 60.8±0.45s ? ?/sec 1.00 58.8±0.68s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing movies in three batches 1.14 16.5±0.30s ? ?/sec 1.00 14.5±0.24s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing movies with default settings 1.11 13.7±0.07s ? ?/sec 1.00 12.3±0.28s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing nested movies with default settings 1.10 10.6±0.11s ? ?/sec 1.00 9.6±0.15s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing nested movies without any facets 1.11 9.4±0.15s ? ?/sec 1.00 8.5±0.10s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing songs in three batches with default settings 1.18 66.2±0.39s ? ?/sec 1.00 56.0±0.67s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing songs with default settings 1.07 58.7±1.26s ? ?/sec 1.00 54.7±1.71s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing songs without any facets 1.08 53.1±0.88s ? ?/sec 1.00 49.3±1.43s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing songs without faceted numbers 1.08 57.7±1.33s ? ?/sec 1.00 53.3±0.98s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing wiki 1.06 1051.1±21.46s ? ?/sec 1.00 989.6±24.55s ? ?/sec
indexing/Indexing wiki in three batches 1.20 1184.8±8.93s ? ?/sec 1.00 989.7±7.06s ? ?/sec
indexing/Reindexing geo_point 1.04 67.5±0.75s ? ?/sec 1.00 64.9±0.32s ? ?/sec
indexing/Reindexing movies with default settings 1.12 13.9±0.17s ? ?/sec 1.00 12.4±0.13s ? ?/sec
indexing/Reindexing songs with default settings 1.05 60.6±0.84s ? ?/sec 1.00 57.5±0.99s ? ?/sec
indexing/Reindexing wiki 1.07 1725.0±17.92s ? ?/sec 1.00 1611.4±9.90s ? ?/sec
```
Co-authored-by: Loïc Lecrenier <loic@meilisearch.com>
594: Fix(Search): Fix phrase search candidates computation r=Kerollmops a=ManyTheFish
This bug is an old bug but was hidden by the proximity criterion,
Phrase searches were always returning an empty candidates list when the proximity criterion is deactivated.
Before the fix, we were trying to find any words[n] near words[n]
instead of finding any words[n] near words[n+1], for example:
for a phrase search '"Hello world"' we were searching for "hello" near "hello" first, instead of "hello" near "world".
Co-authored-by: ManyTheFish <many@meilisearch.com>
