David Smiley commented on SOLR-13892:

Definitely +1 to "method" as it is consistent with how we address this 
elsewhere, not just Terms QParser.  
I love that you shared your benchmarking code.  I will use it to help see if 
some deep Solr filter refactorings I'm working on don't introduce perf 

As you may guess I'm heavily biased to you sticking with TwoPhaseIterator and 
tossing PostFilter.

> Add postfilter support to {!join} queries
> -----------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-13892
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13892
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: query parsers
>    Affects Versions: master (9.0)
>            Reporter: Jason Gerlowski
>            Assignee: Jason Gerlowski
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-13892.patch, SOLR-13892.patch, 
> join-increasing-from-matches-tpi.png, join-increasing-from-matches1.png
>          Time Spent: 1h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
> The JoinQParserPlugin would be a lot performant in many use-cases if it could 
> operate as a post-filter, especially when doc-values for the involved fields 
> are available.
> With this issue, I'd like to propose a post-filter implementation for the 
> {{join}} qparser.

This message was sent by Atlassian Jira

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

Reply via email to