Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
From: Paul Elschot <paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>
To: lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Boolean Scorer
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:45:17 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: 
 <E3381E0825F1954D953A4E347017BB1C02BF149D@reh001-1.REX001.ExchangeByRegister.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <E3381E0825F1954D953A4E347017BB1C02BF149D@reh001-1.REX001.ExchangeByRegister.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200412102245.17090.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>

Chuck,

On Friday 10 December 2004 22:16, Chuck Williams wrote:
> I'm just a user and haven't tried Paul's DisjunctionScorer yet, but I
> must say this sounds like a great idea.  The ability to specialize
> combineScores() is a significant advantage. ...

In the latest version I dropped the combineScores() and inlined
the summing (in advanceAfterCurrent()).
The main reason is that passing the scoring values of the scorers
in an array does not scale well, ie. it will always cost an amount of
work in proportion to the number of scorers, even if only one of
them actually has a score.

Changing this is should be no problem, though.

Regards,
Paul Elschot


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org