lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Smiley (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2529) always apply position increment gap between values
Date Sat, 02 Oct 2010 18:50:35 GMT


David Smiley updated LUCENE-2529:

    Attachment: LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch

(patch updated)

bq. Maybe, instead of that +1 inside IW, we change the default posIncrGap to 1?

I had the +1 for the gap (i.e. between values) level because I was trying to get a blank value
(or a value consisting of stop words) to bump the position counter as well.  I've been tinkering
with this a bit more and I realize now that I can still achieve my aims without doing that,
but it's still necessary to ignore the very first position increment of the very first value
-- only.  See the new patch.  I think the result now should be even more amenable to others
(i.e. is least disruptive) since anyone messing with the position increment of the first token
of subsequent values will still be honored.

bq. Can you spell out examples of how the indexed positions will change w/ this patch - I'm
having trouble visualizing this. EG for a single valued field, multi-valued, etc.

A single valued field is unaffected.  The first emitted token (if there are any at all) will
remain at position 0 no matter what the analyzer does.  This is also true for the first value
of a multi-valued field if there is any.

For multi-valued fields, it is now always the case that the first token of subsequent values
(e.g. not the first value) will be the previous position (0 if none) + the gap + the first
position increment of this value (typically 1).  This is consistent and sensible.  Formerly,
if the first value was a blank value (or a value consisting of stop words), then you'd get
1 less than what you get now.  I hope the test I modified as part of this patch makes this
more clear; I had to increment the tested positions by 1.

As I said before, I also think that the code is more clear since it no longer has that conditional
pre-decrement and post increment of the position that was probably only understood by you.
 And I did away with the weird "+1" at the gap in my previous patch.

bq. Man I really want to get this logic out of indexer and into the analysis chain (LUCENE-2450
enables this). How multi-valued streams should handle the transition from one value to another
shouldn't be inside the indexer... and maybe (someday) tokens should store their position
(not the gap) so we don't have this cryptic logic inside the indexer..

That sounds great.  There are other strategies of messing with position increments that I
simply can't do without hacking this code further.  For example, it would be neat if the first
token of a value could be devised to start at posIncGap*valueIndex (ex: 0, 1000, 2000, ...)
so that Span queries could determine which value index a term matched against by looking at
it's position (ex: 3092: divide by 1000, drop remainder, add 1: the 4th value ).

> always apply position increment gap between values
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2529
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 2.9.3, 3.0.2, 3.1, 4.0
>         Environment: (I don't know which version to say this affects since it's some
quasi trunk release and the new versioning scheme confuses me.)
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: Koji Sekiguchi
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2529_always_apply_position_increment_gap_between_values.patch,
LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch, LUCENE-2529_skip_posIncr_for_1st_token.patch
>   Original Estimate: 1h
>  Remaining Estimate: 1h
> I'm doing some fancy stuff with span queries that is very sensitive to term positions.
 I discovered that the position increment gap on indexing is only applied between values when
there are existing terms indexed for the document.  I suspect this logic wasn't deliberate,
it's just how its always been for no particular reason.  I think it should always apply the
gap between fields.  Reference line 82:
> if (fieldState.length > 0)
>           fieldState.position += docState.analyzer.getPositionIncrementGap(;
> This is checking fieldState.length.  I think the condition should simply be:  if (i >
> I don't think this change will affect anyone at all but it will certainly help me.  Presently,
I can either change this line in Lucene, or I can put in a hack so that the first value for
the document is some dummy value which is wasteful.

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