Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96174 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 18:56:24 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 18:56:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 73413 invoked by uid 500); 19 Apr 2004 18:56:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 73394 invoked by uid 500); 19 Apr 2004 18:56:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 73379 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 18:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 18:56:11 -0000 Received: from apache.org (c-24-5-145-151.client.comcast.net[24.5.145.151]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004041918561601100k30lie>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:56:16 +0000 Message-ID: <408420CA.6010104@apache.org> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:56:10 -0700 From: Doug Cutting User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: Ordered span query with more than 2 subqueries: avoid? References: <4067B907.1010908@newsmonster.org> <200404012347.00553.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> <4072D6B9.6090508@apache.org> <200404062123.12698.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200404062123.12698.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Paul Elschot wrote: > On Tuesday 06 April 2004 18:11, Doug Cutting wrote: >>I think this is indeed the problem. Currently it always increments the >>earliest span. Rather I think it should increment the first span, still >>within slop of the earliest span, that is out of order. So, in your > > Yes, when the current match length and slop still allow. > >>example, when the spans are [w1 w3 w2], it should increment w3, since >>it's start is zero words after the end of w1 (slop is zero) but it is >>out of order: w2 is required after w1. I think this rule generalizes to >>larger queries. >> >>Does this sound right? If so, then I'll try to fix it. I may not get > > It sounds right, but I'm not certain whether it generalizes to larger > queries. > > The question is: could incrementing the earliest span that is out > of order, but within allowed the slop, cause the search window to miss > the first ordered occurrence with the allowed slop at or after the > beginning of the current search window? > > I can't answer that question in a few minutes, so I'd rather > spend my time on programming the test case for now. Have you or anyone else had time to think more about this? Does this sound like the appropriate fix? Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org