lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-330) [PATCH] Use filter bits for next() and skipTo() in FilteredQuery
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:20:14 GMT
Paul,

I owe you a big apology for the hassle it appears.  I have been  
running from my IDE (IntelliJ) and that test was failing, and I had  
gone and cleaned up lots of modified Lucene source files from  
previous uncommitted patches and ensured my environment was only this  
one change.   I had not run it from Ant but just tried it after  
seeing your reference to it.  All passed.  And so I did a clean build  
from my development environment and the test now passes.   I really  
apologize - I've never had things get out of sync like that  
especially after confirming it several times before posting my issue.

So it appears all is well with that patch.  For reference, it is the  
inlined patch in my comments to LUCENE-330.

I'll commit in a day or so unless there are objections.  The rest of  
LUCENE-330 would still be up for discussion, I haven't tried those  
nor in a position knowledgeable enough to comment on them.

Thank you so much for your contribution(s!) to Lucene, Paul, and also  
with your enduring patience especially with patches that tend to sit  
unapplied for far longer than they should.

	Erik


On Mar 6, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Paul Elschot wrote:

> Erik,
>
> With the FilteredQuery that you provided
> and with only the two printing lines removed:
>
> ===================================================================
> --- TestFilteredQuery.java      (revision 383350)
> +++ TestFilteredQuery.java      (working copy)
> @@ -136,8 +136,6 @@
>          new SingleDocTestFilter(1));
>      bq.add(query, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
>      Hits hits = searcher.search(bq);
> -    System.out.println(hits.id(0));
> -    System.out.println(hits.id(1));
>      assertEquals(0, hits.length());
>    }
>  }
>
> ant -Dtestcase=TestFilteredQuery
>
> passes here.
>
> With this diff:
> ===================================================================
> --- TestFilteredQuery.java      (revision 383350)
> +++ TestFilteredQuery.java      (working copy)
> @@ -131,14 +131,12 @@
>      BooleanQuery bq = new BooleanQuery();
>      Query query = new FilteredQuery(new MatchAllDocsQuery(),
>          new SingleDocTestFilter(0));
> -    bq.add(query, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> +    bq.add(query, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
>      query = new FilteredQuery(new MatchAllDocsQuery(),
>          new SingleDocTestFilter(1));
> -    bq.add(query, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> +    bq.add(query, BooleanClause.Occur.SHOULD);
>      Hits hits = searcher.search(bq);
> -    System.out.println(hits.id(0));
> -    System.out.println(hits.id(1));
> -    assertEquals(0, hits.length());
> +    assertEquals(2, hits.length());
>    }
>  }
>
> the test also passes.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Elschot
>
>
> On Monday 06 March 2006 19:05, you wrote:
>> On Sunday 05 March 2006 23:51, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>>>> Yes, the SHOULD clauses do pass with an expected and actual result
>>>> of 2 documents.  However, changing both to MUST expects 0 documents
>>>> yet the actual number is 2.
>>>
>>> To clarify, the actual number of 2 documents with both clauses a  
>>> MUST
>>> is with the trunk codebase.
>>>
>>> With the patch from the JIRA issue, an
>>> exception occurs.
>>
>> I tried the FilteredQuery.java patch you posted at the jira issue
>> but I cannot get it applied, it fails for both hunks.
>> Could you post your version of FilteredQuery.java?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Paul Elschot
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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