Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Draft: fix(search-ranking): add attributes and labels to search ranking#7222

Draft
werererer wants to merge 7 commits intoTriliumNext:mainfrom
werererer:search-ranking-improved
Draft

Draft: fix(search-ranking): add attributes and labels to search ranking#7222
werererer wants to merge 7 commits intoTriliumNext:mainfrom
werererer:search-ranking-improved

Conversation

@werererer
Copy link

@wererererwerererer commentedOct 8, 2025
edited
Loading

To improve information Retrieval I made some changes to the ranking function:

  • Search now considers note label key and values different and tunable in ranking (It didn't before was a bug prob).
  • Search now considers the Note-ID
  • Made Ranking algorithm more straight forward (likely the first version was similar to the now second)

Note: The search result order will differ due to new rankings. However I compared the ranking with the ranking from the original trilium, and tried to match and improve upon it, by testing it out in practice andhoping that my experience generalizes xD.

The code works in the current stage. But to fine tune it, I will run with it for a bit, tweak it and make it compatible with other wishes of users.

@werererer
Copy link
Author

werererer commentedOct 8, 2025
edited
Loading

Issues Solved

@werererer
Copy link
Author

werererer commentedOct 8, 2025
edited
Loading

@wererererwerererer changed the titlefix(search-ranking): add attributes and labels to search rankingDraft: fix(search-ranking): add attributes and labels to search rankingOct 8, 2025
@werererer
Copy link
Author

werererer commentedNov 23, 2025
edited
Loading

I am still quite confused tbh, since it is kinda an open question in research how to scale up search reliably: However looking at trilium as a potential folksonomy, the question of how to scale up search is a bit non trivial, but might be solved using equivalence classes instead.

Syntax matching won't scale past a certain note count. Web 2.0 was build using folksonomies. And folksonomies failed using that approach.

One solution might be to actually implement equivalence classes. I am currently drafting ideas here:
#1045

Research pointing out that Equivalence classes might be correct abstraction:

Varese & Castano, 2009, Building Collective Tag Intelligence through Folksonomy Coordination,https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-20344-2_4 [They say that legit equivalence classes might be the solution]

Effective Retrieval of Resources in Folksonomies Using a New Tag Similarity Measure,https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6033 [They propose clustering, which is just (imo) statistical equivalence classes]

Tag Similarity in Folksonomies,https://inforsid.fr/actes/2013/2013_5_1%20Mousselly%20Sergieh.pdf [Again clustering, and again i believe just statistical equivalence classes]

Conclusion
I will have this open for a bit more, and will work on equivalence classes instead, till a clearer pattern emerges. Maybe there is a generalized solution to scaling up search that no PKM has touched yet.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@werererer@eliandoran

Comments


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp