[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8386?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16536515#comment-16536515
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-8386:
--------------------------------------
I think I see what you're getting at due to my first mention of Bits vs BitSet;
maybe we confused each other ;)
I'm pointing that ConjunctionDISI makes a special optimization for any of it's
input DISI's of type BitSetIterator, and I think that's a shame since someone
might have a similar DISI that is not necessarily a BitSetIterator precisely.
From that observation, I hypothesized if a DISI might expose an optional Bits
somehow, then ConjunctionDISI could do it's optimization more generically.
> Maybe a DocIdSetIterator may implement Bits?
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8386
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8386
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/search
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Priority: Minor
>
> I was looking at ConjunctionDISI and noted the special case logic for DISI's
> of type BitSetIterator. It seems to only need the more minimal Bits interface
> though it makes references to BitSet specifically. BitSetIterator is a
> concrete class; it would be nice if a DISI could either implement an optional
> interface to expose a Bits or perhaps implements Bits directly. This would
> allow other/custom DISIs that can implement a Bits quickly without being
> forced to use BitSetIterator specifically. Even DocIdSetIterator.all(...)
> could implement this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
