lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Taylor <paul_t...@fastmail.fm>
Subject Re: Anyway to not bother scoring less good matches ?
Date Thu, 05 May 2011 07:17:38 GMT
On 05/05/2011 00:24, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : Well I did extend QuerParser, and the method is being called but rather
> : disappointingly it had no noticeablke effect on how long queries took. I
> : really thought by reducing the number of matches the corresponding scoring
> : phase would be quicker.
>
> "matching" and "scoring" go hand in hand ... the Searcher iterates over
> all docs to determine if they match the Query (i'm being grossly simple,
> in truth many docs can be skipped wholesale during this iteration because
> of conjunctions) and when a matching document is found, it's score is
> computed to determine if it's high enough to be included in the results
> (ie: is it's score higher then the lowest scoring document already
> collected)
>
> The botomline: lucene doesn't know that something is a "less good match"
> until it scores it ... the score is what determines how good it is.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

But doesnt setting setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(3) cause the search to decide that a document
that only matches two terms does not match the query in the first place, therefore not need
scoring ?

Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message