Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of peterlkeegan@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.46 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=SRs/hDJFmTQiJIO72Jwc+8BaUlMbzS3dn59py90tsTw/JRHm3x+yBGpMXGSbuAEsMg
         FQ5xF1ObotiqcB9xcU3hJlpo6lAIX243TpbS6FRwPjFYjtIPM7P6/9WNHhDBTgQ+J0GY
         GpRX+QZ+513vtJwDvD5GnhyikFBcRIjQWnsNI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f18c9dde0912040801t58bd9ca7yacc2a16c829fd3c9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e994873a0912040732y2874d17au4eb8c3f9119e40c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0912040738m65b0ae36ud62e60cdf1660a27@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e994873a0912040747r77d4d4d3j46dd254cb866cec5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f18c9dde0912040801t58bd9ca7yacc2a16c829fd3c9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:27:26 -0500
Message-ID: <e994873a0912040827t165570caib4c036326e811623@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: searchWithFilter bug?
From: Peter Keegan <peterlkeegan@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org, simon.willnauer@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636e0b61e4f2ea80479e995e7

--001636e0b61e4f2ea80479e995e7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The filter is just a java.util.BitSet. I use the top level reader to create
the filter, and call IndexSearcher.search (Query, Filter, HitCollector). So,
there is no 'docBase' at this level of the api.

Peter

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willnauer@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Peter, which filter do you use, do you respect the IndexReaders
> maxDoc() and the docBase?
>
> simon
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Peter Keegan <peterlkeegan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think the Filter's docIdSetIterator is using the top level reader for
> each
> > segment, because the cardinality of the DocIdSet from which it's created
> is
> > the same for all readers (and what I expect to see at the top level.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Michael McCandless <
> > lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That doesn't sound good.
> >>
> >> Though, in searchWithFilter, we seem to ask for the Query's scorer,
> >> and the Filter's docIdSetIterator, using the same reader (which may be
> >> toplevel, for the legacy case, or per-segment, for the normal case).
> >> So I'm not [yet] seeing where the issue is...
> >>
> >> Can you boil it down to a smallish test case?
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Peter Keegan <peterlkeegan@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm having a problem with 'searchWithFilter' on Lucene 2.9.1. The
> Filter
> >> > wraps a simple BitSet. When doing a 'MatchAllDocs' query with this
> >> filter, I
> >> > get only a subset of the expected results, even accounting for
> deletes.
> >> The
> >> > index has 10 segments. In IndexSearcher->searchWithFilter, it looks
> like
> >> the
> >> > scorer is advancing to the filter's docId, which is the index-wide
> value,
> >> > but the scorer is using the segment-relative value. If I optimize the
> >> index,
> >> > I get the expected results.
> >> > Does this look like a bug?
> >> >
> >> > Peter
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--001636e0b61e4f2ea80479e995e7--