lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1518) Merge Query and Filter classes
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:14:47 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1518?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700577#action_12700577
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1518:
--------------------------------------------


bq. I really hate the hasRandomAccess() approach from an OO design standpoint, but I have
to admit that I don't have anything better.

I think we need to approach this as a structural optimization problem;
I think there should be an "optimize()" step after (or during)
rewrite().  The optimize phase would structure the matching to run as
quickly as possible.

Ie, on detecting somehow that a filter is random access, we should
multiply it out (down) to each TermScorer.  If deletes are
pre-multiplied in the filter, we tell each TermScorer not to check
deletes.

[We may need a filter manager to go along w/ this, eg that will
convert a filter to random-access (if it's going to be reused),
multiply in deletes (and re-do that whenever new reader is opened),
etc.]

Likewise, LUCENE-1252 splits matching of queries that consult
positional information into two steps (roughly "cheap" and
"expensive") and does all "cheap" tests across each "and" clause and
"expensive" only when necessary.  So optimize() would return two
matchers for such queries, and we'd "collate" the cheap matchers
together first, followed by the expensive one.

Not requiring an implicit next() after skipTo() ... so optimize would
decide which matchers should "drive" the iteration, and which others
should do random-access test.  Some next()'s (eg OR or AND matchers)
are far more costly than other next()'s (eg, TermScorer).  Some are
far more restrictive than others, etc.

Of course, some filters require iterator access, so clearly we must
accept that.

At some point, there will be too much splintering of options and
source code specialization should [somehow] take over in enumerating
all the combinations.  EG the field-sort collectors are already
getting close to this (record score or not, compute max score or not,
single field vs multi field, docID required for tie breaking or not,
etc).


> Merge Query and Filter classes
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1518
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1518
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.4
>            Reporter: Uwe Schindler
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1518.patch
>
>
> This issue presents a patch, that merges Queries and Filters in a way, that the new Filter
class extends Query. This would make it possible, to use every filter as a query.
> The new abstract filter class would contain all methods of ConstantScoreQuery, deprecate
ConstantScoreQuery. If somebody implements the Filter's getDocIdSet()/bits() methods he has
nothing more to do, he could just use the filter as a normal query.
> I do not want to completely convert Filters to ConstantScoreQueries. The idea is to combine
Queries and Filters in such a way, that every Filter can automatically be used at all places
where a Query can be used (e.g. also alone a search query without any other constraint). For
that, the abstract Query methods must be implemented and return a "default" weight for Filters
which is the current ConstantScore Logic. If the filter is used as a real filter (where the
API wants a Filter), the getDocIdSet part could be directly used, the weight is useless (as
it is currently, too). The constant score default implementation is only used when the Filter
is used as a Query (e.g. as direct parameter to Searcher.search()). For the special case of
BooleanQueries combining Filters and Queries the idea is, to optimize the BooleanQuery logic
in such a way, that it detects if a BooleanClause is a Filter (using instanceof) and then
directly uses the Filter API and not take the burden of the ConstantScoreQuery (see LUCENE-1345).
> Here some ideas how to implement Searcher.search() with Query and Filter:
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a Filter as the only parameter. As every Filter is
also a ConstantScoreQuery, the query can be executed and returns score 1.0 for all matching
documents.
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a Query as the only parameter: No change, all is
the same as before
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a BooleanQuery as parameter: If the BooleanQuery
does not contain a Query that is subclass of Filter (the new Filter) everything as usual.
If the BooleanQuery only contains exactly one Filter and nothing else the Filter is used as
a constant score query. If BooleanQuery contains clauses with Queries and Filters the new
algorithm could be used: The queries are executed and the results filtered with the filters.
> For the user this has the main advantage: That he can construct his query using a simplified
API without thinking about Filters oder Queries, you can just combine clauses together. The
scorer/weight logic then identifies the cases to use the filter or the query weight API. Just
like the query optimizer of a RDB.

-- 
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


Mime
View raw message