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)
From: Paul Elschot <paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Combining search steps without re-searching
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:31:28 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <20060828211703.4967.qmail@web25912.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060828211703.4967.qmail@web25912.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608282331.28925.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl>

On Monday 28 August 2006 23:17, eks dev wrote:
> you are right Chuck, it depends... Filters are great for fields with small 
cardinality (majority of terms in normal collection) or things that are 
sorted (assuming Paul's patch gets commited so we do not use BitSet and we 
could use less memory hungry structures like interval lists :) With BitSet, 
paradoxically it makes sense to use them for high freq. terms to save memory

Also, filters loose scoring values of earlier clauses that are filtered for 
drilling down.
Adding required clauses to a boolean query and searching this
query combines the scoring values of all clauses.

> 
> Hi commiters, any chance of getting rid of BitSet in Filter? Can somebody 
guide what else needs to be done to have it commited, we have a pair of hands 
to help... 

One more here,

Thanks,
Paul Elschot

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