Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CF734D0E for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 87183 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 07:48:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 86383 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 07:48:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 86240 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2011 07:48:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:48:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.116] (HELO hel.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.116) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:48:08 +0000 Received: from hel.zones.apache.org (hel.zones.apache.org [140.211.11.116]) by hel.zones.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62911425E14 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:47:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:47:48 +0000 (UTC) From: "Paul Elschot (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <710279347.23635.1308642468400.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2454) Nested Document query support MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2454?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13052409#comment-13052409 ] Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-2454: -------------------------------------- This overlaps with the BlockJoinQuery of LUCENE-3171, this issue might even be closed as duplicate of that one. Which one is preferred? On using prev/nextSetBit in a safe range, this safe range starts with the parent and ends with the largest known child. A variant of prevSetBit could take this largest known child as an argument to limit its search, and then from the return value one has either a new parent, or one is certain that the current parent is the right one. This would also limit the worst case number of inspected bits for the group to the group size. With or without that variant, I think it would be good to add a remark in the javadocs about the possible inefficiency of the use of OpenBitSet for larger group sizes. When the typical group size gets a lot bigger than the number of bits in a long, another implementation might be faster. This remark the in javadocs would allow us to wait for someone to come along with bigger group sizes and a real performance problem here. > Nested Document query support > ----------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-2454 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2454 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: core/search > Affects Versions: 3.0.2 > Reporter: Mark Harwood > Assignee: Mark Harwood > Priority: Minor > Attachments: LUCENE-2454.patch, LUCENE-2454.patch, LuceneNestedDocumentSupport.zip > > > A facility for querying nested documents in a Lucene index as outlined in http://www.slideshare.net/MarkHarwood/proposal-for-nested-document-support-in-lucene -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org