[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3328?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13068272#comment-13068272
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3328:
-------------------------------------

do we really need an extra query or rewrite? Can't booleanweight just pick 
ConjunctionTermScorer in this case?

> Specialize BooleanQuery if all clauses are TermQueries
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3328
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3328
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/search
>    Affects Versions: 3.4, 4.0
>            Reporter: Simon Willnauer
>             Fix For: 3.4, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3328.patch
>
>
> During work on LUCENE-3319 I ran into issues with BooleanQuery compared to 
> PhraseQuery in the exact case. If I disable scoring on PhraseQuery and bypass 
> the position matching, essentially doing a conjunction match, 
> ExactPhraseScorer beats plain boolean scorer by 40% which is a sizeable gain. 
> I converted a ConjunctionScorer to use DocsEnum directly but still didn't get 
> all the 40% from PhraseQuery. Yet, it turned out with further optimizations 
> this gets very close to PhraseQuery. The biggest gain here came from 
> converting the hand crafted loop in ConjunctionScorer#doNext to a for loop 
> which seems to be less confusing to hotspot. In this particular case I think 
> code specialization makes lots of sense since BQ with TQ is by far one of the 
> most common queries.
> I will upload a patch shortly

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to