On Friday 11 November 2005 23:04, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : Wouldn't it make sense to have BooleanFilter,
> : TermFilter, MultiTermFilter, RangeFilter... fammily to
> : "mirror" xxxQuery world with same idioms and
> : interfaces? Is this the direction allready taken in
> : Lucene development (an alternative would be to
> : parametrize existiong Query world). How I see it
> : functionaly, at a moment filters (and thir
> : combination) are the only way to use fast "pure
> : boolean" model.
> :
> : Does this what I just said makes any sense?
>
> It makes perfect sense, and you have grasped a ot of the possibilities.
> While making a version of Filter varient of every Query class is my gut
> instinct, there has in fact been discussion about generalizing Queries so
> that they can have "non-scoring" mode. these issues have all been
> mentioned in LUCENE-383 ...
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-383
>
> One of the big reasons why it might make sense to use Queries instead of
> Filters even if you don't care about scoring is when you have a large set
> of very restrictive conditions. (ie: A BooleanQuery consisting of many
> TermQueries). the BooleanScorer can make good decisisons to skip over
> large sets of documents -- sometimes ignoring sub queries entirely -- when
> one sub query only matches a few documents because of hte flexability of
> the Scorer API.
>
> The Filter API on the other hand doesn't have this flexability. There is
> not way for a ChainedFilter/BooleanFilter to know that it can skip over
> one of it's sub filters, or ask one of it's sub filters to only look at
> certain documents.
This FilteredQuery will skip over documents that do not pass the filter:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330
even when it is nested in itself.
Regards,
Paul Elschot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
|