[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3328?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-3328:
--------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: 3.4)
setting 4.0-only.
if someone volunteers to comes up with some smart not-buggy and not-hairy
patch, thats cool, I just can't visualize it now.
> 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: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3328.patch, 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
