[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8286?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16540745#comment-16540745
 ] 

David Smiley commented on LUCENE-8286:
--------------------------------------

I updated the PR significantly.  It addresses requireFieldMatch/fieldMatcher 
and some other cases.  [~romseygeek] you might find it worthwhile to see the 
changes as some are applicable to the highlighter you're working on.  See 
OverlaySingleDocTermsLeafReader in particular.  The different aspects of the 
changes were reasonably separated out to separate commits.  There are a couple 
nocommits.  There are a few failing tests but before I can make substantive 
progress at this point, it's dependent on getting access to the matching terms 
for passage scoring.

> UnifiedHighlighter should support the new Weight.matches API for better match 
> accuracy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-8286
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8286
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/highlighter
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: LUCENE-8286.patch
>
>          Time Spent: 10m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The new Weight.matches() API should allow the UnifiedHighlighter to more 
> accurately highlight some BooleanQuery patterns correctly -- see LUCENE-7903.
> In addition, this API should make the job of highlighting easier, reducing 
> the LOC and related complexities, especially the UH's PhraseHelper.  Note: 
> reducing/removing PhraseHelper is not a near-term goal since Weight.matches 
> is experimental and incomplete, and perhaps we'll discover some gaps in 
> flexibility/functionality.
> This issue should introduce a new UnifiedHighlighter.HighlightFlag enum 
> option for this method of highlighting.   Perhaps call it {{WEIGHT_MATCHES}}? 
>  Longer term it could go away and it'll be implied if you specify enum values 
> for PHRASES & MULTI_TERM_QUERY?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to