lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Li Li <fancye...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: why the of advance(int target) function of DocIdSetIterator is defined with uncertain?
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:55 GMT
I found the patch has removed the score(Collector) and
score(Collector,int,int) method. this seems to mean that this scorer is not
possibly used as top-level scorer. Why old implementation has this method?
anywhere use DisjunctionSumScorer as top level scorer?

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Li Li <fancyerii@gmail.com> wrote:

> thanks. it's great.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> mkhludnev@griddynamics.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I can't help with the particular question, but can share some experience.
>> My task is roughly the same I've found the patch
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2686 is absolutely useful
>> (with one small addition, I'll post it in comments soon). By using it I
>> have disjunction summing query with steady subscorers.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Li Li <fancyerii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>     I am now hacking the BooleanScorer2 to let it keep the docID() of
>>> the leaf scorer(mostly possible TermScorer) the same as the top-level
>>> Scorer. Why I want to do this is: When I Collect a doc, I want to know
>>> which term is matched(especially for BooleanClause whose Occur is SHOULD).
>>> we have discussed some solutions, such as adding bit masks in disjunction
>>> scorers. with this method, when we finds a matched doc, we can recursively
>>> find which leaf scorer is matched. But we think it's not very efficient and
>>> not convenient to use(this is my proposal but not agreed by others in our
>>> team). and then we came up with another one: Modifying DisjunctionSumScorer.
>>>    we analysed the codes and found that the only Scorers used by
>>> BooleanScorer2 that will make the children scorers' docID() not equal to
>>> parent is an anonymous class inherited from DisjunctionSumScorer. All other
>>> ones including SingleMatchScorer, countingConjunctionSumScorer(anonymous),
>>> dualConjuctionSumScorer, ReqOptSumScorer and ReqExclScorer are fit our need.
>>>    The implementation algorithm of DisjunctionSumScorer use a heap to
>>> find the smallest doc. after finding a matched doc, the currentDoc is the
>>> matched doc and all the scorers in the heap will call nextDoc() so all of
>>> the scorers' current docID the nextDoc of currentDoc. if there are N level
>>> DisjunctionSumScorer, the leaf scorer's current doc is the n-th next docId
>>> of the root of the scorer tree.
>>>    So we modify the DisjuctionSumScorer and let it behavior as we
>>> expected. And then I wrote some TestCase and it works well. And also I
>>> wrote some random generated TermScorer and compared the nextDoc(),score()
>>> and advance(int) method of original DisjunctionSumScorer and modified one.
>>> nextDoc() and score() and exactly the same. But for advance(int target), we
>>> found some interesting and strange things.
>>>    at the beginning, I think if target is less than current docID, it
>>> will just return current docID and do nothing. this assumption let my
>>> algorithm go wrong. Then I read the codes of TermScorer and found each call
>>> of advance(int) of TermScorer will call nextDoc() no matter whether current
>>> docID is larger than target or not.
>>>    So I am confused and then read the javadoc of DocIdSetIterator:
>>> ----------------- javadoc of DocIdSetIterator.advance(int
>>> target)-------------
>>>
>>> int org.apache.lucene.search.DocIdSetIterator.advance(int target) throws
>>> IOException
>>>
>>> Advances to the first beyond (see NOTE below) the current whose document
>>> number is greater than or equal
>>>  to target. Returns the current document number or NO_MORE_DOCS if there
>>> are no more docs in the set.
>>> Behaves as if written:
>>>  int advance(int target) {
>>>    int doc;
>>>    while ((doc = nextDoc()) < target) {
>>>    }
>>>    return doc;
>>>  }
>>>  Some implementations are considerably more efficient than that.
>>> NOTE: when target < current implementations may opt not to advance
>>> beyond their current docID().
>>> NOTE: this method may be called with NO_MORE_DOCS for efficiency by some
>>> Scorers. If your
>>>  implementation cannot efficiently determine that it should exhaust, it
>>> is recommended that you check for
>>>  that value in each call to this method.
>>> NOTE: after the iterator has exhausted you should not call this method,
>>> as it may result in unpredicted
>>>  behavior.
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Then I modified my algorithm again and found that
>>> DisjunctionSumScorer.advance(int target) has some strange behavior. most of
>>> the cases, it will return currentDoc if target < currentDoc. but in some
>>> boundary condition, it will not.
>>> it's not a bug but let me sad. I thought my algorithm has some bug
>>> because it's advance method is not exactly the same as original
>>> DisjunctionSumScorer's.
>>> ----codes of DisjunctionSumScorer---
>>>   @Override
>>>   public int advance(int target) throws IOException {
>>>     if (scorerDocQueue.size() < minimumNrMatchers) {
>>>       return currentDoc = NO_MORE_DOCS;
>>>     }
>>>     if (target <= currentDoc) {
>>>       return currentDoc;
>>>     }
>>>    ....
>>> -------------------
>>> for most case if (target <= currentDoc) it will return currentDoc;
>>> but if previous advance will make sub scorers exhausted, then if may
>>> return NO_MORE_DOCS
>>> an example is:
>>>    currentDoc=-1
>>>    minimumNrMatchers=1
>>>    subScorers:
>>>       TermScorer: docIds: [1, 2, 6]
>>>       TermScorer: docIds: [2, 4]
>>> after first call advance(5)
>>>     currentDoc=6
>>>     only first scorer is now in the heap, scorerDocQueue.size()==1
>>> then call advance(6)
>>>     because scorerDocQueue.size() < minimumNrMatchers, it just return
>>> NO_MORE_DOCS
>>>
>>> My question is why the advance(int target) method is defined like this?
>>> for the reason of efficient or any other reasons?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely yours
>> Mikhail Khludnev
>> gedel@yandex.ru
>>
>> <http://www.griddynamics.com>
>>  <mkhludnev@griddynamics.com>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message