lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1575) Refactoring Lucene collectors (HitCollector and extensions)
Date Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:22:50 GMT


Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1575:

bq. We could make the change (turn off filtering), but put a setter on IndexSearcher to have
it insert the "PositiveScoresOnlyCollector" wrapper?

Then why do that at all? If I need to call searcher.setKeepOnlyPositiveScores, then it means
a change to my code. I could then just pass in the PositiveScoresOnlyCollector to the search
methods instead, right?

I guess you are referring to the methods which don't take a collector as a parameter and instantiate
a new TopScoreDocCollector internally? I tend to think that if someone uses those, it is just
because they are simple, and I find it very hard to imagine that that someone relies on the
filtering. So perhaps we can get away with just documenting the change in behavior?

bq. I think the vast majority of users are not relying on <= 0 scoring docs to be filtered

I tend to agree. This has been around for quite some time. I checked my custom collectors,
and they do the same check. I only now realize I just followed the code practice I saw in
Lucene's code, never giving it much thought of whether this can actually happen. I believe
that if I'd have extended Lucene in a way such that it returns <=0 scores, I'd be aware
of that and probably won't use the built-in collectors. I see no reason to filter <= 0
scored docs anyway, and if I wanted that, I'd probably write my own filtering collector ...

I think that if we don't believe people rely on the <= 0 filtering, let's just document
it. I'd hate to add a setter method to IndexSearcher, and a unit test, and check where else
it should be added (i.e., in extending searcher classes) and introduce a new API which we
might need to deprecate some day ...
People who'll need that functionality can move to use the methods that accept a Collector,
and pass in the PositiveScoresOnlyCollector. That way we also keep the 'fast and easy' search
methods really simple, fast and easy.

Is that acceptable?

> Refactoring Lucene collectors (HitCollector and extensions)
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1575
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 2.9
> This issue is a result of a recent discussion we've had on the mailing list. You can
read the thread [here|].
> We have agreed to do the following refactoring:
> * Rename MultiReaderHitCollector to Collector, with the purpose that it will be the base
class for all Collector implementations.
> * Deprecate HitCollector in favor of the new Collector.
> * Introduce new methods in IndexSearcher that accept Collector, and deprecate those that
accept HitCollector.
> ** Create a final class HitCollectorWrapper, and use it in the deprecated methods in
IndexSearcher, wrapping the given HitCollector.
> ** HitCollectorWrapper will be marked deprecated, so we can remove it in 3.0, when we
remove HitCollector.
> ** It will remove any instanceof checks that currently exist in IndexSearcher code.
> * Create a new (abstract) TopDocsCollector, which will:
> ** Leave collect and setNextReader unimplemented.
> ** Introduce protected members PriorityQueue and totalHits.
> ** Introduce a single protected constructor which accepts a PriorityQueue.
> ** Implement topDocs() and getTotalHits() using the PQ and totalHits members. These can
be used as-are by extending classes, as well as be overridden.
> ** Introduce a new topDocs(start, howMany) method which will be used a convenience method
when implementing a search application which allows paging through search results. It will
also attempt to improve the memory allocation, by allocating a ScoreDoc[] of the requested
size only.
> * Change TopScoreDocCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, use the topDocs() and getTotalHits()
implementations as they are from TopDocsCollector. The class will also be made final.
> * Change TopFieldCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, and make the class final. Also
implement topDocs(start, howMany).
> * Change TopFieldDocCollector (deprecated) to extend TopDocsCollector, instead of TopScoreDocCollector.
Implement topDocs(start, howMany)
> * Review other places where HitCollector is used, such as in Scorer, deprecate those
places and use Collector instead.
> Additionally, the following proposal was made w.r.t. decoupling score from collect():
> * Change collect to accecpt only a doc Id (unbased).
> * Introduce a setScorer(Scorer) method.
> * If during collect the implementation needs the score, it can call scorer.score().
> If we do this, then we need to review all places in the code where collect(doc, score)
is called, and assert whether Scorer can be passed. Also this raises few questions:
> * What if during collect() Scorer is null? (i.e., not set) - is it even possible?
> * I noticed that many (if not all) of the collect() implementations discard the document
if its score is not greater than 0. Doesn't it mean that score is needed in collect() always?
> Open issues:
> * The name for Collector
> * TopDocsCollector was mentioned on the thread as TopResultsCollector, but that was when
we thought to call Colletor ResultsColletor. Since we decided (so far) on Collector, I think
TopDocsCollector makes sense, because of its TopDocs output.
> * Decoupling score from collect().
> I will post a patch a bit later, as this is expected to be a very large patch. I will
split it into 2: (1) code patch (2) test cases (moving to use Collector instead of HitCollector,
as well as testing the new topDocs(start, howMany) method.
> There might be even a 3rd patch which handles the setScorer thing in Collector (maybe
even a different issue?)

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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message