Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 15935 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2007 00:12:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2007 00:12:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 55167 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2007 00:12:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 54522 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2007 00:12:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 54511 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2007 00:12:40 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:12:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:12:36 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7B8714187 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <24605683.1180915935838.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:12:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Hoss Man (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-903) FilteredQuery explanation inaccuracy with boost In-Reply-To: <2747754.1180859895588.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-903?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12501067 ] Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-903: --------------------------------- I have some reservations about this patch. I think it's fine to set as a goal that all "core" query classes should have Explanations where the description accurately describes a mathematical calculation that can be performed on the details to arrive at the value of the Explanation -- which is easy to do since we have the luxury of changing the CHeckHits class to suit our needs anytime we add a new class that has a more "interesting" mathematical calculation then we can current account for. But we should also try to maintain CheckHIts as a reusable class that clients can use to run basic sanity tests on their own custom Query classes, and holding them to the same standard (when they can't easily modify the string pattern rules in CheckHits) doesn't seem fair. lemme try to refactor the current patch a bit so that the "deep" Explanation testing is optional (and used by the core tests) > FilteredQuery explanation inaccuracy with boost > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-903 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-903 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Search > Affects Versions: 2.2 > Reporter: Doron Cohen > Assignee: Doron Cohen > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.2 > > Attachments: lucene-903.patch > > > The value of explanation is different than the product of its part if boost > 1. > This is exposed after tightening the explanation check (part of LUCENE-446). -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org