Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <42B929CC.9050106@l3s.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:05:16 +0200
From: Wolf Siberski <siberski@l3s.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (Windows/20041201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: BooleanQuery Semantics (was: [Bug 31841]  -    [PATCH]
 MultiSearcher...)
References: <20050621210833.E655113@ajax.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050621210833.E655113@ajax.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> 
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31841
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From lucenebugs@danielnaber.de  2005-06-21 23:08 -------
> There might be one corner case that your change in equals doesn't get right 
> (not tested): a query "a b a" (i.e. one clause occuring twice -- doesn't make 
> much sense, but has an influence on the result order) would equal "a b b", 
> wouldn't it? Is that a problem?  

Maybe naively, I assumed that BooleanQuery just follows the classical
boolean logic approach. Then "a b a" and "a b b" should yield exactly
the same result. On the other hand, I can follow your reasoning that
the current implementation will compute different scores for these queries.

So the question is: Which one is the *intended* semantics of BooleanQuery?

Depending on the answer, either my change to BooleanQuery.equals() shouldn't
be applied, or BooleanQuery needs to be fixed in another way, e.g. by
removing duplicate clauses in BooleanQuery.rewrite().


--Wolf


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