[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9204?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17366383#comment-17366383
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-9204:
--------------------------------------
Nice work Michael G!
bq. baseline and candidate code are the same
Thus only the Task and QPS columns (first two) are the only thing interesting
in the output. I initially looked over your comment about that and was
wondering by the end what was being compared ;-) That said, looking at the
last comparison, can we see Intervals is substantially faster than Spans?
> Move span queries to the queries module
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9204
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9204
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alan Woodward
> Assignee: Alan Woodward
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: main (9.0)
>
> Time Spent: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> We have a slightly odd situation currently, with two parallel query
> structures for building complex positional queries: the long-standing span
> queries, in core; and interval queries, in the queries module. Given that
> interval queries solve at least some of the problems we've had with Spans, I
> think we should be pushing users more towards these implementations. It's
> counter-intuitive to do that when Spans are in core though. I've opened this
> issue to discuss moving the spans package as a whole to the queries module.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
