lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doron Cohen <>
Subject Re: ReadTask and its hierarchy needs some house cleaning
Date Tue, 18 May 2010 07:32:31 GMT
How would this affect for example current micro-standard.alg?

In particular this part of it:

        { "WarmNewRdr" Warm > : 50
        { "SrchNewRdr" Search > : 500
        { "SrchTrvNewRdr" SearchTrav(1000) > : 300
        { "SrchTrvRetNewRdr" SearchTravRet(2000) > : 100

Proposed change gets rid of these tasks, right?


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Shai Erera <> wrote:

> Hi
> I wanted to run a benchmark .alg which will take a Filter into account.
> However, ReadTask, which is the base for a variety of search related tasks,
> does not support a Filter. When I reviewed the class, to understand how I
> can easily add such Filter support, I discovered a whole set of classes
> which IMO are completely unnecessary. ReadTask defines some with*() methods,
> such as withSearch, withTraverse etc. and many classes override ReadTask
> just to return true/false in those methods. WarmTask for example, returns
> true in withWarm() and false otherwise, while SearchTask returns true in
> withSearch and false otherwise.
> This created a whole set of extensions that you either need to run in
> sequence (e.g. Warm, SearchWithCollector) or create your own extension just
> to get the right recipe for the operations to perform.
> I suggest we do the following changes:
> * Rename ReadTask to SearchTask -- that's because RT uses IndexSearcher,
> QueryMaker -- all that suggests it's about Searching and not Reading. It's
> only semantics, I know, but I think SearchTask is clearer than ReadTask
> * Get rid of all the with*() methods, and instead move to use properties:
> search.with.warm, search.with.traverse, search.with.collector etc.
> * Introduce protected createCollector, createFilter, createSort, for custom
> extensions
> * Create a completely new hierarchy for this task, throwing away everything
> that can be handled through properties only (like SearchTask, WarmTask etc.)
> If we do this, then extensions of the new SearchTask will need to ask
> themselves "do I want to search w/ a Collector/Filter/custom Sort?" and not
> "do I Warm to be executed?" The core operation behind this task is
> The rest are just settings, or configuration, as well
> as some added ops like warm, and traverse. If it makes sense, I can factor
> warm() and traverse() into their own protected methods, for extensions to
> override as well. It might make sense for warm because custom warms is
> something I'm sure will be needed.
> This will also allow running algorithms with rounds - different properties
> for different rounds.
> This approach does not prevent one from creating MySearchTask with
> pre-defined and hard-coded settings. But for many others, the question of
> which task to execute will go away - you execute SearchTask for the basic
> search operations, or w/ the default Collector/Sort, and you control it via
> properties. To create your own *SearchTask extension which hard-codes a
> recipe, you'll need access to all the do<OP> members, so I'll make them
> protected. But that's IMO is a rare requirement, than say running a search
> with warm + traverse, and you shouldn't be forced to create a ReadTask
> extension for that.
> What do you think?
> Shai

View raw message