Add filter function for NeuralQueryBuilder and HybridQueryBuilder and… #1206

chloewqg · 2025-03-03T08:01:00Z

… modify fromXContent function in HybridQueryBuilder to support filter field.

Description

Add filter function to NeuralQueryBuilder and HybridQueryBuilder, which allows to push down non null filter. One exception is that when HybridQueryBuilder has a nested HybridQueryBuilder, then calling the filter function will cause UnsupportedOperationException

Related Issues

Resolves #1206
Related: #282, #1135

Check List

New functionality includes testing.
New functionality has been documented.
API changes companion pull request created.
Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff.
Public documentation issue/PR created.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryBuilder.java

heemin32 · 2025-03-03T22:24:30Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        if (!validateFilterParams(filter)) {
+            return this;
+        }
+        HybridQueryBuilder compoundQueryBuilder = new HybridQueryBuilder();


Why do we have to create a new query builder instead of returning this?

I cannot find validateFilterParams method. Besides that the naming is confusing, if you conclude validity of the object based on return value that needs to be in the name, something like isValidFilterParams. Also change negation to an explicit == false

The method is added in core. opensearch-project/OpenSearch#17409
Should we have to use that method? Can we just do null check explicitly here instead of relying on the method?

Hi the validateFilterParams is in the core package, inside the AbstractQueryBuilder class. https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/blob/main/server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/query/AbstractQueryBuilder.java#L94

Why do we have to create a new query builder instead of returning this?

Because I saw the the queries of HybridQueryBuilder is marked as final. https://github.com/opensearch-project/neural-search/blob/main/src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java#L56

So I think as we need to reassign a list of queries to the queries variable inside the HybridQueryBuilder. So we can only create a new HybridQueryBuilder to solve this?

Wouldn't this double the filters sizes? Like if there are two filters, when we add(query.filter(filter)), wouldn't this create duplicate filters?

Thanks Martin for the comment! Actually the function name validateFilterParams was suggested by Daniel in the pull request of core package. opensearch-project/OpenSearch#17409 , is it okay to leave as what it is for now?

if method is already there let's utilize it. Please use == false syntax instead of negation, I see you've used it in other places in your PR

Yep. Updated in the newer commit

Quote reply

I think the filter input check is common across all the query builders. Although current check is simple of whether it equals to null, adding a function here can allow complicated logic changes in the future

I think you can do something like queries.set(i, queries.get(i).filter(filter));

martin-gaievski

there is a separate issue and the whole design/RFC for hybrid query. Is this a building block for that design or this is a conflicting issue?
Ref: #282, #1135

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-04T16:38:21Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        if (!validateFilterParams(filter)) {
+            return this;
+        }
+        HybridQueryBuilder compoundQueryBuilder = new HybridQueryBuilder();


I cannot find validateFilterParams method. Besides that the naming is confusing, if you conclude validity of the object based on return value that needs to be in the name, something like isValidFilterParams. Also change negation to an explicit == false

chloewqg · 2025-03-04T17:59:23Z

there is a separate issue and the whole design/RFC for hybrid query. Is this a building block for that design or this is a conflicting issue? Ref: #282, #1135

Hi Martin, this is a building block for that design. cc @bzhangam

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-04T18:36:12Z

there is a separate issue and the whole design/RFC for hybrid query. Is this a building block for that design or this is a conflicting issue? Ref: #282, #1135

Hi Martin, this is a building block for that design. cc @bzhangam

Got it, makes sense then. Can you please mention same in the PR description and also update the link to the feature request issue under "Related issues"? If the filtering feature requires multiple PRs/building blocks I suggest you create a high-level meta issue and host smaller PRs under that meta issue.

codecov · 2025-03-04T18:44:33Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.83%. Comparing base (57124dd) to head (f9b9425).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##               main    #1206     +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     81.83%   81.83%             
+ Complexity     2607     1311   -1296     
===========================================
  Files           190       95     -95     
  Lines          8922     4481   -4441     
  Branches       1520      764    -756     
===========================================
- Hits           7301     3667   -3634     
+ Misses         1028      518    -510     
+ Partials        593      296    -297

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

chloewqg · 2025-03-04T22:01:29Z

there is a separate issue and the whole design/RFC for hybrid query. Is this a building block for that design or this is a conflicting issue? Ref: #282, #1135

Hi Martin, this is a building block for that design. cc @bzhangam

Got it, makes sense then. Can you please mention same in the PR description and also update the link to the feature request issue under "Related issues"? If the filtering feature requires multiple PRs/building blocks I suggest you create a high-level meta issue and host smaller PRs under that meta issue.

Gotcha. Thanks!

bzhangam · 2025-03-04T22:15:04Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryIT.java

+     * }
+     */
+    @SneakyThrows
+    public void testQueryWithBoostAndFilterApplied() {


Why we add this IT? I think the filter function is an existing feature for neural query?

Here we are testing whether adding another filter on NeuralQuery would be function as expected.

I think IT is mock a real use case. If we want to test that we should test a hybrid query with a neural sub query. And both the hybrid query and the neural query have a filter.

In this test we simply test the filter function of the neural query builder which has already be done as a unit test.

I think that's fine to have one end-to-end test with neural query and some complex filter, but I would remove the "match none" part. All the permutations and edge cases should be tested with UT, integ test are quite expensive for this.

bzhangam · 2025-03-04T22:17:34Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryPostFilterIT.java

+        }
+    }*/
+    @SneakyThrows
+    private void testRangeQueryAsFilter(String indexName) {


Why we add this IT in PostFilterIT? Filter is different from post filter. I think we should either add it to the HybridQueryIT or create a new HybridQueryFilterIT.

Do you plan to raise another PR to add tests for BWC? BWC tests are under the qa folder.

Why we add this IT in PostFilterIT? Filter is different from post filter. I think we should either add it to the HybridQueryIT or create a new HybridQueryFilterIT.

+1, better add new class HybridQueryFilterIT

Do you plan to raise another PR to add tests for BWC? BWC tests are under the qa folder.

I think the current bwc tests is blocking the merge. So I will do the bwc tests here in the same PR

Why we add this IT in PostFilterIT? Filter is different from post filter. I think we should either add it to the HybridQueryIT or create a new HybridQueryFilterIT.

Sure. Will create a new HybridQueryFilterIT

I saw you created HybridQueryFilterIT. Do you plan to remove this test?

heemin32 · 2025-03-10T22:28:09Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        if (validateFilterParams(filter) == false) {
+            return this;
+        }
+        for (int i = 0; i < queries.size(); i++) {


This is fine because the queries are array list. However, we should avoid the assumption that it will be ArrayList especially because we defined as List.

private final List<QueryBuilder> queries = new ArrayList<>();

Therefore, following is better so that its performance does not degrade even if we switch to other list type. Also, we don't need to check if query is type of HybridQuery or not. It should be checked somewhere else.

ListIterator<QueryBuilder> iterator = queries.listIterator(); while(iterator.hasNext()) { QueryBuilder query = iterator.next(); // set the query again because query.filter(filter) can return new query. iterator.set(query.filter(filter)); }

// set the query again because query.filter(filter) can return new query. This comment is important because query.filter(filter) can return a new query builder instance, so we need to reassign it. Additionally, we should have a unit test to cover this case to ensure the test fails if the query builder is not updated. In fact, the query.filter() method is somewhat misleadingly named, as it suggests that it simply applies a filter to the existing query builder rather than creating a new query builder.

Gotcha! Thanks Heemin! Btw, I am little confused in the current bwc tests failure. Seems like the error message is

Caused by: io.netty.channel.AbstractChannel$AnnotatedConnectException: Connection refused: 127.0.0.1/127.0.0.1:42235 » Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused

I am bit confused on what is wrong here with my filter function changes.

we should have a unit test to cover this case to ensure the test fails if the query builder is not updated

For this case, the last test case in testFilter() function cover such scenario

heemin32 · 2025-03-12T20:17:53Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        ListIterator<QueryBuilder> iterator = queries.listIterator();
+        while(iterator.hasNext()) {
+            QueryBuilder query = iterator.next();
+            if (query instanceof HybridQueryBuilder) {


I don't think we need this check here?

Hi Heemin, thanks for your comments. Do you mean check of hybrid query build type? I remember in design doc that when the filter query is a hybrid query and we should throw unsupported operation for it.

That will be handled by https://github.com/opensearch-project/neural-search/pull/498/files#diff-64ab60781cf1e9f7963a415406f49283b26945beaa46b7042e7cc5044d8d95b1R168

I don't think this method should worry about it.

heemin32

LGTM. Thanks!

bzhangam · 2025-03-14T18:17:41Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+    /**
+     * Function to support filter on HybridQueryBuilder filter. Currently pushing down a filter
+     * to HybridQueryBuilder is not supported by design. We would simply check if the filter is valid
+     * and throw exception telling this is an unsupported operation. If the filter is null, then we do nothing and


The description doesn't match the implementation. Have we changed the mind that we want to support the filter push down for a hybrid query? Basically it means we want to support a hybrid query nested in another hybrid query. I don't think we plan to support it in near future.

I asked to remove the check of nested hybrid query here. I believe the blocking of the nested hybrid query should be handled elsewhere, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be in this specific location. https://github.com/opensearch-project/neural-search/pull/498/files#diff-64ab60781cf1e9f7963a415406f49283b26945beaa46b7042e7cc5044d8d95b1R168

Still I think we should update the comment which does not match with the actual implementation.

Please state in the comment that filter is not stored in the top hybrid query but only pushed down to individual sub-queries

Yes. Will publish new revision for that.

bzhangam · 2025-03-14T18:25:51Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

@@ -51,6 +52,7 @@ public final class HybridQueryBuilder extends AbstractQueryBuilder<HybridQueryBu
    public static final String NAME = "hybrid";

    private static final ParseField QUERIES_FIELD = new ParseField("queries");
+    private static final ParseField FILTER_FIELD = new ParseField("filter");


The new field should also be added to HybridQueryBuilder(StreamInput in) and doXContent(XContentBuilder builder, Params params) so that we will lose the filter info when we pass it across nodes. Even though the filter info is already included in the sub queries I think we still should follow the best practice to include it in those two functions.

Besides we also want to add it to the doEquals and doHashCode function in case they are used to compare two hybrid queries.

It seems like we are missing some test case here unless this filter setting is happening in coordination node.

Sounds good

Hi Bo, quick question while I am trying to follow your comments.

The new field should also be added to HybridQueryBuilder(StreamInput in) and doXContent(XContentBuilder builder, Params params) so that we will lose the filter info.

What do you mean by we will lose the filter info? Could you please give an example?

add it to the doEquals and doHashCode function in case they are used to compare two hybrid queries.

The field I added here is not the filter itself but the filter parser field name. I believe the filter itself is pushed down to queries. So we are automatically comparing the queries and its filter in doEquals and doHashCode. What do you mean by adding it to the doEquals and doHashCode function?

For your first question when we pass the query across nodes we will convert it to a stream and later in another node build it based on the stream. If we don't clearly write the filter to the stream we will lose it.

For the second question we override the doEquals and doHashCode function so if we don't clearly check it those two functions will ignore it.

Synced offline. Since currently we always want to push down the filter to sub-queries and we always do this work in the fromXContent function there is no need to persist the filter in the HybridQuery. In this case there is not need to write it to the stream since it's already included in the sub-queries. Same for the doEqual and doHash functions.

I think this should be fine, one concern I do have is some edge case in context of cluster upgrade. Can you add a bwc test, it may be skipped for now for 2.x -> 3.x migration, but it will run in future for next 3.x, e.g. 3.0 -> 3.1. You can check how it's done in of the recent PR for stats API

bzhangam · 2025-03-14T18:37:52Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryFilterIT.java

+        }
+    }*/
+    @SneakyThrows
+    private void testRangeQueryAsFilter(String indexName) {


I think most common use case for hybrid query is using a neural query and a normal term query as sub queries. Can we build the IT for that use case?

One important thing we want to validate is that for neural query we should push the filter into it. It can give us different result compared to the case we use a bool query to combine a filter with a neural query. This happens because the filter in neural query will be applied before we return the top k result while the filter combined through a bool query will happen after returning the top k result. Would recommend to build a test case for that.

Okay, sounds good

vibrantvarun

Please add bwc tests as this field is added new to the query. We need to evaluate the impact in case of bwc environment.
Why we have not added this field in HybridQuery.java?

cc: @martin-gaievski @heemin32

heemin32 · 2025-03-14T18:59:05Z

Why we have not added this field in HybridQuery.java?

We just pass the filter down to sub queries. Therefore, there is no need for hybrid query to hold it as we are not going to filter after the sub queries return the result.

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-17T23:41:58Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        while (iterator.hasNext()) {
+            QueryBuilder query = iterator.next();
+            // set the query again because query.filter(filter) can return new query.
+            iterator.set(query.filter(filter));


we can save few CPU cycles here if we check for a queryWithFilter ref, if that's same as query then there is no need in calling set() method

Sounds good

@martin-gaievski, If you're okay with it, let's keep this as is. The difference between equals and set is negligible, so a simpler approach would be preferable.

ok, let's keep the set() method, I agree that original version of the code is simpler

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-17T23:48:45Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryPostFilterIT.java

@@ -74,6 +74,13 @@ public void testPostFilterOnIndexWithSingleShard_whenConcurrentSearchEnabled_the
        testPostFilterMatchAllAndMatchNoneQueries(TEST_MULTI_DOC_INDEX_WITH_TEXT_AND_INT_SINGLE_SHARD);
    }

+    @SneakyThrows
+    public void testFilterOnIndexWithSingleShard_whenConcurrentSearchEnabled_thenSuccessful() {


how exactly this test is related to post-filter? You've created a new IT just for filter in neural and hybrid, I think this method should be removed

Yes will remove it.

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-17T23:49:59Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryBuilderTests.java

@@ -763,6 +768,29 @@ private NeuralQueryBuilder getBaselineNeuralQueryBuilder() {
            .build();
    }

+    public void testFilter() {


please follow method name convention - "testFeature_whenScenario_thenExpectedOutcome"

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-17T23:50:57Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryIT.java

@@ -176,6 +177,101 @@ public void testQueryWithBoostAndImageQueryAndRadialQuery() {
        );
    }

+    /**
+     * Tests basic query without filter:


this is tested in existing tests, can be removed

Okay, I will remove the test here.

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-17T23:57:34Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryIT.java

+     * }
+     */
+    @SneakyThrows
+    public void testQueryWithBoostAndFilterApplied() {


I think that's fine to have one end-to-end test with neural query and some complex filter, but I would remove the "match none" part. All the permutations and edge cases should be tested with UT, integ test are quite expensive for this.

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T00:16:54Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

@@ -51,6 +52,7 @@ public final class HybridQueryBuilder extends AbstractQueryBuilder<HybridQueryBu
    public static final String NAME = "hybrid";

    private static final ParseField QUERIES_FIELD = new ParseField("queries");
+    private static final ParseField FILTER_FIELD = new ParseField("filter");


I think this should be fine, one concern I do have is some edge case in context of cluster upgrade. Can you add a bwc test, it may be skipped for now for 2.x -> 3.x migration, but it will run in future for next 3.x, e.g. 3.0 -> 3.1. You can check how it's done in of the recent PR for stats API

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T00:18:41Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+    /**
+     * Function to support filter on HybridQueryBuilder filter. Currently pushing down a filter
+     * to HybridQueryBuilder is not supported by design. We would simply check if the filter is valid
+     * and throw exception telling this is an unsupported operation. If the filter is null, then we do nothing and


Please state in the comment that filter is not stored in the top hybrid query but only pushed down to individual sub-queries

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T00:25:03Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryBuilder.java

+        if (filter == null) {
+            filter = filterToBeAdded;
+            return this;
+        }
+        filter = filter.filter(filterToBeAdded);
+        return this;


Suggested change

if (filter == null) {

filter = filterToBeAdded;

return this;

}

filter = filter.filter(filterToBeAdded);

return this;

if (filter == null) {

filter = filterToBeAdded;

} else {

filter = filter.filter(filterToBeAdded);

}

return this;

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T16:51:16Z

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java

+        while (iterator.hasNext()) {
+            final QueryBuilder query = iterator.next();
+            final QueryBuilder queryWithFilter = query.filter(filter);
+            if (!queryWithFilter.equals(query)) {


don't use equals method, you need to compare exact reference, like queryWithFilter == query. Also use == false instead of negation in if condition

@martin-gaievski I don’t see any benefit from this change. The previous code was much better—using a set isn’t costly, even compared to an equals check. The earlier implementation was also simpler and more readable. Would it be possible to revert to the previous version?

By the way, in this code, we are calling query.filter(filter); two times.

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T16:53:54Z

...upgrade/src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/bwc/restart/HybridSearchWithRescoreIT.java

+                    modelId,
+                    Map.of("ef_search", 100),
+                    RescoreContext.getDefault(),
+                    new MatchQueryBuilder("_id", "1")


why this change is needed, it doesn't look like a simple adoption of the new argument?

Oh I checked previous PR and found they modify this for bwc tests. Shall I discard this change?

if by default filter can be null then pass it as null. With current logic you're testing multiple things, but the test has been built just for rescore functionality

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T16:58:00Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryFilterIT.java

+    }
+
+    @SneakyThrows
+    public void testFilterOnIndexWithSingleShard_whenConcurrentSearchEnabled_thenSuccessful() {


I don't think we need this match of tests for CSS, one should be enough, this one you can delete

martin-gaievski · 2025-03-18T16:59:35Z

src/test/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryFilterIT.java

+    }
+
+    @SneakyThrows
+    private void testNeuralQueryBuilder(String indexName) {


you need yo set the CSS setting explicitly, if index is same then setting can be on or off dpending on the order of execution, in other words it's not guaranteed

What do you mean by set the CSS setting explicitly?

Another question for [Build and Test Neural Search / Pre-commit Linux (23, ubuntu-latest) ] Failure. It is caused by java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.opensearch.knn.index.engine.KNNEngine Yesterday it works fine offline. What might be causing this issue?

What do you mean by set the CSS setting explicitly?

if you want CSS to be disabled for the test, make sure to explicitly set it to false. It looks like you're enabling it in tests where you need it, and assuming that it will be reset to false before each next test. It's not the case if tests are sharing same index. In other words your test may be running against index where CSS is enabled when it's not required

Another question for [Build and Test Neural Search / Pre-commit Linux (23, ubuntu-latest) ] Failure. It is caused by java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.opensearch.knn.index.engine.KNNEngine Yesterday it works fine offline. What might be causing this issue?

which run do you mean? I checked few failed ones at random, they are all flaky, model haven't loaded in time:

java.lang.AssertionError: failed to load the model, last task finished with status RUNNING

Another failure related to some recent changes in core, I think it's covered by this issue: #1232

… modify fromXContent function in HybridQueryBuilder to support filter field. Signed-off-by: Chloe Gao <[email protected]>

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from d05a418 to 1cd7801 Compare March 3, 2025 08:04

chloewqg marked this pull request as ready for review March 3, 2025 18:43

chloewqg requested review from heemin32, navneet1v, VijayanB, vamshin, jmazanec15, naveentatikonda, junqiu-lei, martin-gaievski, sean-zheng-amazon, model-collapse, zane-neo, vibrantvarun, zhichao-aws, yuye-aws and minalsha as code owners March 3, 2025 18:43

junqiu-lei reviewed Mar 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/HybridQueryBuilder.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/main/java/org/opensearch/neuralsearch/query/NeuralQueryBuilder.java Show resolved Hide resolved

heemin32 reviewed Mar 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

martin-gaievski reviewed Mar 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 1cd7801 to 21f0595 Compare March 4, 2025 17:58

bzhangam reviewed Mar 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Mar 5, 2025

[FEATURE] Add top level filter clause to hybrid query clause to avoid duplication of filters in sub query clause of hybrid search #282

Closed

[RFC] Common Filter Support for Hybrid Query Sub-Queries #1135

Closed

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 21f0595 to 4ae66e1 Compare March 6, 2025 18:27

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 4ae66e1 to cb7dff7 Compare March 10, 2025 01:19

heemin32 reviewed Mar 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from cb7dff7 to 0ad8bb9 Compare March 12, 2025 19:20

heemin32 reviewed Mar 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 0ad8bb9 to 2fec237 Compare March 13, 2025 22:25

heemin32 approved these changes Mar 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

bzhangam reviewed Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

vibrantvarun reviewed Mar 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

martin-gaievski reviewed Mar 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 2fec237 to 3f682e8 Compare March 18, 2025 16:06

martin-gaievski reviewed Mar 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 3f682e8 to 60f4c81 Compare March 18, 2025 20:12

Add filter function for NeuralQueryBuilder and HybridQueryBuilder and…

f9b9425

… modify fromXContent function in HybridQueryBuilder to support filter field. Signed-off-by: Chloe Gao <[email protected]>

chloewqg force-pushed the local branch from 60f4c81 to f9b9425 Compare March 18, 2025 23:56

martin-gaievski approved these changes Mar 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

heemin32 merged commit 8abb418 into opensearch-project:main Mar 19, 2025
52 checks passed

Add filter function for NeuralQueryBuilder and HybridQueryBuilder and… #1206

Add filter function for NeuralQueryBuilder and HybridQueryBuilder and… #1206

Conversation

chloewqg commented Mar 3, 2025 • edited Loading

Description

Related Issues

Check List

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

martin-gaievski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chloewqg commented Mar 4, 2025

martin-gaievski commented Mar 4, 2025

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

chloewqg commented Mar 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

heemin32 Mar 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

heemin32 Mar 12, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

heemin32 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

heemin32 Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vibrantvarun left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

heemin32 commented Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chloewqg commented Mar 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

heemin32 Mar 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

heemin32 Mar 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

heemin32 Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

vibrantvarun left a comment •

edited

Loading

heemin32 commented Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

martin-gaievski Mar 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading