[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4548?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13494855#comment-13494855
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-4548:
---------------------------------------
bq. My broad comments on this having looked at a variety of these classes, is
that the whole situation is very confusing. There are a bunch of classes here
related to filtering that if you consider the sum total of them, it seems like
a bit much to get a handle on: Filter, ChainedFilter, BooleanFilter,
FilteredQuery, FilteredDocIdSet, BitsFilteredDocIdSet. I'm probably missing
some. And then of course Filter != Query but sometimes they need to be adapted
to each other. I bet there are a dozen ways I could skin this cat . That's a
problem.
You are mixing user-faced classes and internal @lucene.internal classes!
My general preference would be to nuke Filters completely from Lucene and make
everything a Query (this is how Solr handles the stuff, too). A filter is just
a Query with a constant score. Those queries could optionally use a Bitset for
matching...
Some comments:
- BitsFilteredDocIdSet, FilteredDocIdSet: This are just helper classes to not
repeat the same stuff everywhere in Lucene. User's are never facing them.
- FilteredQuery is *the one and only approch* to apply filters in recent Lucene
versions! Since Lucene 4.0, IndexSearcher.search(Query, Filter) just wraps the
Query and Filter with FilteredQuery, there is no more Filter logic in
IndexSearcher anymore! IndexSearcher.search(Query, Filter) is just a
convenience method and aliases to IndexSearcher.search(new FilteredQuery(Query,
Filter))!
- ChainedFilter should be deprecated, this class is so broken. It also still
uses outdated OpenBitSet. At least we should move to sandbox. E.g., to chain
and'ed filters just use "new FilteredQuery(new FilteredQuery(query, filter1),
filter2)" or use BooleanFilter.
- BooleanFilter may be useful, but I don't really like it. Once we have Filters
and Queries the same class, one could use BooleanQuery to achieve the same with
the constant score queries. BooleanFilter is also inconsistent to BooleanQuery
with pure negative clauses!
> BooleanFilter should optionally pass down further restricted acceptDocs in
> the MUST case (and acceptDocs in general)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4548
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4548
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Attachments: LUCENE-4548.patch
>
>
> Spin-off from dev@lao:
> {quote}
> bq. I am about to write a Filter that only operates on a set of documents
> that have already passed other filter(s). It's rather expensive, since it
> has to use DocValues to examine a value and then determine if its a match.
> So it scales O(n) where n is the number of documents it must see. The 2nd
> arg of getDocIdSet is Bits acceptDocs. Unfortunately Bits doesn't have an
> int iterator but I can deal with that seeing if it extends DocIdSet.
> bq. I'm looking at BooleanFilter which I want to use and I notice that it
> passes null to filter.getDocIdSet for acceptDocs, and it justifies this with
> the following comment:
> bq. // we dont pass acceptDocs, we will filter at the end using an additional
> filter
> the idea of passing the already build bits for the MUST is a good idea and
> can be implemented easily.
> The reason why the acceptDocs were not passed down is the new way of filter
> works in Lucene 4.0 and to optimize caching. Because accept docs are the only
> thing that changes when deletions are applied and filters are required to
> handle them separately: whenever something is able to cache (e.g.
> CachingWrapperFilter), the acceptDocs are not cached, so the underlying
> filters get a null acceptDocs to produce the full bitset and the filtering is
> done when CachingWrapperFilter gets the “uptodate” acceptDocs. But for this
> case this does not matter if the first filter clause does not get acceptdocs,
> but later MUST clauses of course can get them (they are not
> deletion-specific)!
> Can you open issue to optimize the MUST case (possibly MUST_NOT, too)?
> Another thing that could help here: You can stop using BooleanFilter if you
> can apply the filters sequentially (only MUST clauses) by wrapping with
> multiple FilteredQuery: new FilteredQuery(new FilteredQuery(originalQuery,
> clause1), clause2). If the DocIdSets enable bits() and the FilteredQuery
> autodetection decides to use random access filters, the acceptdocs are also
> passed down from the outside to the inner, removing the documents filtered
> out.
> {quote}
> Maybe BooleanFilter should have 2 modes (Boolean ctor argument): Passing down
> the acceptDocs to every filter (for the case where Filter calculation is
> expensive and accept docs help to limit the calculations) or not passing down
> (if the filter is cheap and the multiple acceptDocs bit checks for every
> single filter is more expensive – which is then more effective, e.g. when the
> Filter is only a cached bitset). The first mode would also optimize the
> MUST/MUST_NOT case to pass down the further restricted acceptDocs on later
> filters (just like FilteredQuery does).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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]
