[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10120?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17440761#comment-17440761
]
Greg Miller commented on LUCENE-10120:
--------------------------------------
[~jpountz] ah very interesting. OK, thank you for the pointer and apologies for
missing that. So I suppose there could still be situations where a more complex
query ends up matching all docs in the index and gets cached, but maybe it's
pretty unlikely (e.g., disjunction of terms that results in all docs matching).
I'm still in favor of this addition since I think we could do it in a simple
way, but I'm feeling less strongly about it given some of the special handling
you pointed out in the default caching policy. I'm curious what [~ChrisLu] has
run into though in terms of use-cases.
> Lazy initialize FixedBitSet in LRUQueryCache
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10120
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10120
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/search
> Affects Versions: main (10.0)
> Reporter: Lu Xugang
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: 1.png, LUCENE-10120.patch
>
> Time Spent: 4h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Basing on the implement of collecting docIds in DocsWithFieldSet, may be we
> could do similar way to cache docIdSet in
> *LRUQueryCache#cacheIntoBitSet(BulkScorer scorer, int maxDoc)* when docIdSet
> is density.
> In this way , we do not always init a huge FixedBitSet which sometime is not
> necessary when maxDoc is large
>
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
