bug#70689: guix search doesn't weigh word matches higher than subword matches

[bokr@bokr.com]

On +2024-04-30 22:18:03 -0400, Richard Sent wrote:
> Hi Guix!
> 
> When running guix search, relevance in synopsis and description fields
> are computed strictly by the number of matches, both as a word and as a
> subword. Ideally, if a search string matches an isolated word in a
> search, that result should be considered more relevant than simply
> matching a subword, even multiple times.
> 
> To illustrate, imagine trying to find what package provides the `rsh`
> binary and running running `$ guix search rsh`. This binary is part of
> `inetutils` and the description field contains:
> 
> > Inetutils is a collection of common network programs, such as an ftp
> > client and server, a telnet client and server, an rsh client and
> > server, and hostname.
> 
> Most likely, this is what the user is interested in. However, inetutils
> does not show up until roughly the ~75th result with a relevance of 2
> (the lowest possible relevance).
> 
> Almost every search result beforehand contains the string "rsh" as a
> component of another word, such as "marshaling", "powershell", and
> "hershey". However, these match multiple times and are weighted
> significantly higher.
> 
> Ideally, guix search should rate inetutils higher because the string
> "rsh" occurs as its own word, not as a component of another, unrelated
> word. (Very, very people would search "rsh" looking for matches with
> "hershey", even if "hershey" occurs multiple times.)
> 
> Another example of where this can happen is with "dig", part of the bind
> package. Searching for "dig" returns garbage because "dig" is a common
> subword. Bind is scored with a relevance of 2, even though bind's
> description emphasises that dig is part of it.
> 
> This would improve the experience when searching with strings that
> commonly occur as subwords.
> 
> Since this change can't occur in a vacuum, care should be taken not to
> reduce the effectiveness of other reasonably forseeable search queries.
> 
> -- 
> Take it easy,
> Richard Sent
> Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.
> 
> 
> 

I like your proposal :)

I'm wondering how [1] compares in what it does for your use(ful) case.
(I am not familiar with Hyper Estraier beyond being prompted for gnu.org searching)

[1] <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Hyper_Estraier>

--
Regards,
Bengt Richter