gf2121 commented on code in PR #14523:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14523#discussion_r2051413753
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/comparators/TermOrdValComparator.java:
##########
@@ -524,17 +524,21 @@ public int advance(int target) throws IOException {
@Override
public void intoBitSet(int upTo, FixedBitSet bitSet, int offset) throws
IOException {
+ upTo = Math.min(upTo, maxDoc);
if (upTo <= doc) {
return;
}
// Optimize the case when intersecting the competitive iterator is
expensive, which is when it
// hasn't nailed down a disjunction of competitive terms yet.
if (disjunction == null) {
if (docsWithField != null) {
+ // Paranoid check, we need to be absolutely sure that the iterator
is at least at offset
+ if (docsWithField.docID() < offset) {
Review Comment:
+1
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/DisjunctionDISIApproximation.java:
##########
@@ -146,6 +146,9 @@ public int advance(int target) throws IOException {
@Override
public void intoBitSet(int upTo, FixedBitSet bitSet, int offset) throws
IOException {
while (leadTop.doc < upTo) {
+ if (leadTop.approximation.docID() < offset) {
+ leadTop.approximation.advance(offset);
+ }
Review Comment:
I think we did not need this because the caller of
`DisjunctionDISIApproximation` should make sure `docID >= offset` before
calling `intoBitset`. There should be no problem here like the
competitiveIterator in `TermOldValComparator` where the doc is inconsistent
with the inner structure.
--
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
