rmuir commented on PR #12089: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12089#issuecomment-1385954675
Thanks for looking at this. I can alter benchmark from #12087 to test this case, honestly we could even just take the benchmark and index the numeric field as a string instead as a start :) In the case of numeric fields, we just had crazy query in the sandbox which is better as e.g. NumericDocValues.newSlowSetQuery. And then we hooked into IntField etc as newSlowSetQuery with the IndexOrDocValuesQuery. For that one, we had to fix PointInSetQuery to support ScorerSupplier etc (but TermInSetQuery already has this cost estimation) I was naively thinking to try to the same approach with the DocValuesTermsQuery that is in sandbox... though I anticipated maybe more trickiness with inverted index as opposed to points. But maybe IndexOrDocValuesQuery would surprise me again, of course its probably worth exploring anyway, we could compare the approaches. I do like IndexOrDocValuesQuery for solving these problems and if we can improve it to keep it generic, i'd definitely be in favor of that. But whatever is fastest wins :) I do think its important to add these fields such as KeywordField and put this best-practice logic behind simple methods so that it is easier on the user. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
