[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4939?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13635040#comment-13635040
 ] 

Martijn van Groningen commented on LUCENE-4939:
-----------------------------------------------

I never really thought about this... I think it doesn't make sense that the 
TermsIncludingScoreQuery's Weight delegates to the original query. Any query 
normalisation should happen on the "from" query. The "to"  query 
(TermsIncludingScoreQuery) should just use the scores it gets from the "from" 
query (so query time boosts should be placed on the "from" query).
                
> Join's TermsIncludingScoreQuery Weight has wrong normalization
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4939
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4939
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: modules/join
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In the Join module, TermsIncludingScoreQuery's Weight implementation looks 
> suspiciously wrong.  It creates a Weight based on the original query and 
> delegates a couple calls to it in getValueForNormalization() and normalize() 
> -- ok fine.  But then it doesn't do anything with it!  Furthermore, the 
> original query has already been run by this point anyway.
> Question: Should the original query, which currently runs separately (see 
> JoinUtil), participate in the Weight normalization of the main query?  It 
> would be tricky to wire all this together based on the current structure but 
> arguably that is more correct.

--
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]

Reply via email to