[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6227?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14312524#comment-14312524
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-6227:
--------------------------------------
I agree that the names lack symmetry and it would be nice to fix it... I like
the idea of renaming MUST_NOT to something like FILTER_NEGATION to make clear
that it does not score. Or maybe even shorter, eg. FILTER_NOT?
> Add BooleanClause.Occur.FILTER
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6227
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6227
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Assignee: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Trunk, 5.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6227.patch, LUCENE-6227.patch, LUCENE-6227.patch
>
>
> Now that we have weight-level control of whether scoring is needed or not, we
> could add a new clause type to BooleanQuery. It would behave like MUST exept
> that it would not participate in scoring.
> Why do we need it given that we already have FilteredQuery? The idea is that
> by having a single query that performs conjunctions, we could potentially
> take better decisions. It's not ready to replace FilteredQuery yet as
> FilteredQuery has handling of random-access filters that BooleanQuery
> doesn't, but it's a first step towards that direction and eventually
> FilteredQuery would just rewrite to a BooleanQuery.
> I've been calling this new clause type FILTER so far, but feel free to
> propose a better name.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
