lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Williams <ch...@allthingslocal.com>
Subject Re: Correct of Query.combine() bugs with new MultiSearcher
Date Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:03:10 GMT
Thanks Erik.  If you don't here more, I'm sure this fixes a whole class 
of problems and is better than the previous situation.  I'm also 
confident that it will do the right thing for all the query types built 
into Lucene.  My remaining uncertainty concerns whether user query types 
might somehow cause a problem, and in that regard the pre-patch 
implementation might throw an exception when the patch will try to do 
something that should work (this occurs when the new query types do 
non-trivial rewrites, sometimes rewriting into built-in query types).  
Such user query types that need to work with MultiSearcher might need to 
provide their own combine() method or a patch to this one.  That was 
true before as well.

My message however below however is pretty poorly written!  
Clarifications to make it intelligible follow:

Erik Hatcher wrote:

> I've confirmed Chuck's patch does fix the Highlighter test.  I'm set 
> to commit it once it gets the thumbs-up from Doug.
>
>     Erik
>
> On Apr 26, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Chuck Williams wrote:
>
>> As noted in the patch description I just submitted, it should be a 
>> complete, correct, robust (relative to possible user Query 
>> implementations) and reasonably optimal solution for 
>> Query.combine().  It also simplifies the previous methods, deleting 
>> all overrides of Query.combine() and Query.mergeBooleanQueries().  
>> The current implementation fails to account for queries that rewrite 
>> into different primitive types on different
>
"current implentation" = before this patch

>> sub-searchers and fails to account for the fact that the rewritten 
>> query type of the first sub-searcher is nothing special.  The current 
>> solution
>
"current solution" = this patch

>> looks at all rewritten subsearcher queries as a whole and computes 
>> the (reasonably) best single query to distribute.  This patch is 
>> slightly better than what I sent via email last night:
>>  1.  It's a patch that can be applied in the usual way
>>  2.  It handles the missing optimization cases I noted in last 
>> night's email
>>  3.  It fixes potential bugs that would not arise with Lucene's query 
>> types but could arise with user-written queries (e.g., user queries 
>> that rewrite differently in arbitrary ways for the different 
>> sub-serarchers).
>>
>> Doug and Wolf, please review the patch.  All tests pass.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


-- 
*Chuck Williams*
All Things Local
Founder and CEO
V: (415)464-1889
C: (415)846-9018
chuck@AllThingsLocal.com <mailto:chuck@AllThingsLocal.com>
AIM: hawimanawiz

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


Mime
View raw message