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-4803) DrillDownQuery should rewrite to FilteredQuery?
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:16:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4803?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13587330#comment-13587330
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-4803:
--------------------------------------------

I committed test coverage, asserting that DDQ never alters the scores of the original query,
and it seems to be passing ...

I'll leave this open (but not work on it for now...) to explore whether we should use FilteredQuery
instead.  Our Filter would not be random access (we'd just do QueryWrapperFilter(BQ(+dd1 +dd2
+dd3 ...)) ... not sure if we'd see perf changes with FilteredQuery.
                
> DrillDownQuery should rewrite to FilteredQuery?
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4803
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4803
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 4.2, 5.0
>
>
> Today we rewrite to a query like +baseQuery +ConstantScoreQuery(boost=0.0 TermQuery(drillDownTerm)),
but I'm not certain 0.0 boost is safe / doesn't actually change scores.
> We should also add a test to assert that scores are not changed by drill down.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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


Mime
View raw message