lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Rodenburg <jeff.rodenb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hits issue or custom filter issue?
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:03:07 GMT
Good call, Chris.....I followed the BitSet comparison route and found that 
the custom filter was working exactly as it should, but *I* wasn't passing 
it correct data. Rookie mistake.

Doh! I hate it when that happens.

-- j


On 9/13/05, Jeff Rodenburg <jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/13/05, Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I just had another thought: is the number of results you get back from
> > each of the filters the same as the number you get back if you apply no
> > filter?
> 
> 
> In one case yes, in another case no. I've been able to test to either some 
> results, or zero results. Very strange.
> I'll post some test code in a while.
> 
> If so, then:
> > 
> > a) Perhaps you don't realize this, but a Filter can never be used to 
> > increase the number of results returned by a query. Filter's can only
> > limit the number of items returned. No matter how many bits are set to
> > true in the BitSet you return, the Searcher won't even check the bits 
> > for 
> > documents with a score of zero.
> 
> 
> Haven't checked the scores of the returning documents in the aggregated 
> result set, but believe (on appearance) that they have greater-than-zero 
> scores.
> 
> 
> b) Is it possible that your filter isn't doing anything all, ie: is there
> > any execution path that may return a BitSet in which every bit is set? 
> 
> 
> It's either doing nothing or not working at all. This seems to be the 
> likely culprit. Strangely enough, the custom filter is used previously and 
> works fine.
> 
> ...also, an easy way to sanity test your CustomFilter is to skip the Query
> > object alltogether, and just call the Filter.bits(IndexReader) directly
> > on each filter, and compare the BitSets you get back. if they are
> > .equals() then there's your problem.
> 
> 
> Will do the step-through following this manner and post the results.
> 
> -- j
> 
> : Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:22:49 -0700
> > : From: Jeff Rodenburg < jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com>
> > : Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org, jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com
> > : To: Chris Hostetter < hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
> > : Cc: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > : Subject: Re: Hits issue or custom filter issue?
> > :
> > : Might be the same issue, haven't been able to determine during a
> > : step-through on the code exec.
> > : You're right, no need to add a new FilteredQuery to the statement, 
> > just a
> > : search on combinedQuery with a new myCustomFilter. 
> > : Unfortunately, no joy; same response.
> > :
> > : -- j
> > :
> > : On 9/13/05, Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > : Hits h1 = oMultiSearcher.Search(new FilteredQuery(combinedQuery, 
> > new
> > : > : myCustomFilter(1)));
> > : > : Hits h2 = oMultiSearcher.Search(new FilteredQuery(combinedQuery, 
> > new
> > : > : myCustomFilter(2)));
> > : >
> > : > ...do you get the same results if you use... 
> > : >
> > : > Hits h1 = oMultiSearcher.search(combinedQuery, myCustomFilter(1));
> > : > Hits h2 = oMultiSearcher.search(combinedQuery, myCustomFilter(2));
> > : >
> > : > ...I'm not sure why you wouldn't use that method call instead 
> > anyway. 
> > : >
> > : > This may be another sympton of a bug that worked in the trunk when i
> > : > reported it...
> > : >
> > : > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=LUCENE-366 
> > : >
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > -Hoss
> > : >
> > : >
> > :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Hoss
> > 
> > 
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message