[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-958?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12512714
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-958:
-------------------------------------

Think of a Filter as symbolic rather than concrete (e.g. the set of documents 
matching the query "inStock:true")
Filter.getBits is passed an IndexReader as an argument, and returns the actual 
ids (via a BitSet) for that reader only.
Thus, an implementation that returns the same BitSet regardless of what 
IndexReader it is passed is not going to work correctly.

> MultiSearcher Filtering with more than one index is broken
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-958
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-958
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.2
>            Reporter: Ion Badita
>
> Using filtering on MultiSarcher with more than one index is not working right.
> Probable the best way to describe the problem is to give a small example:
> Suppose we have 2 Indexes with two documents each:
> Index1 {Doc(id:"A", content:".."), Doc(id:"B", content:"..")}
> Index2 {Doc(id:"C", content:".."), Doc(id:"D", content:"..")}
> When executing a query that returns all the documents and applying a 
> QueryFilter that generated the following BitSet (1, 0, 0, 0), it should 
> filter all the documents but first; the real results are: Doc(id:"A") and 
> Doc(id:"B"), this because the MultiSearcher applies the BitSet filter from 
> the bitset's position 0 for each Index.
> The right way is to split the bitset in peaces: Index1 to get the bites form 
> 0-1 and Index2 bites from 2-3.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to