[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8857?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16868555#comment-16868555
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-8857:
-----------------------------------------
A couple of comments:
* can you open a PR and associate it with this issue. Patches are so hard to
review without context and the ability to comment
* for the second case in IndexsSearcher should we also tie-break by doc?
* Can we replace the verbose comparators with _Comparator.comparingInt(d ->
d.shardIndex);_ and _Comparator.comparingInt(d -> d.doc);_ respectively?
* Any chance we can select the tie-breaker based on if one of the TopDocs has
a shardIndex != -1 and assert that all of them have it or not? Another option
would be to have only one comparator and first tie-break on shardIndex and then
on doc since we don't set the shard index it should be fine since they are all
-1? WDYT?
> Refactor TopDocs#Merge To Take In Custom Tie Breakers
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8857
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8857
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Atri Sharma
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: LUCENE-8857.patch, LUCENE-8857.patch, LUCENE-8857.patch,
> LUCENE-8857.patch, LUCENE-8857.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-8829, the idea of having lambdas passed in to the API to allow
> finer control over the process was discussed.
> This JIRA tracks adding a parameter to the API which allows passing in
> lambdas to define custom tie breakers, thus allowing users to do custom
> algorithms when required.
> CC: [~jpountz] [~simonw]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
