[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1518?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700490#action_12700490
]
Marvin Humphrey commented on LUCENE-1518:
-----------------------------------------
> Have we agreed on how the class structure is going to look and what the
> optimizations will look like?
I don't think this problem is solved.
I thought I had come up with a grand unifying OO design solution with my
Matcher proposal for Lucy. Matcher was to be the base class for any matching
iterator, whether the task was scoring, filtering, or deletions (a specialized
kind of filter). A provisional implementation has been completed in KS svn
trunk.
Unfortunately, McCandless's benchmarks on iterated vs. random access filters
have blown a hole in the Matcher approach. Whether it can be mended, or
whether starting over from scratch is the best idea, I don't know. I really
hate the hasRandomAccess() approach from an OO design standpoint, but I have
to admit that I don't have anything better. However, I do think that it's
essential for any Filter refactoring to answer Mike's challenge in full.
Right now, we don't have search-time benchmarking capabilities for Lucy/KS,
and I don't think it's possible for me, at least, to pursue any further
experimentation until we acquire those capabilities. For the time being, I've
turned my attention to other concerns, and I don't expect to push this issue
forward for a little while.
> Merge Query and Filter classes
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1518
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1518
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1518.patch
>
>
> This issue presents a patch, that merges Queries and Filters in a way, that
> the new Filter class extends Query. This would make it possible, to use every
> filter as a query.
> The new abstract filter class would contain all methods of
> ConstantScoreQuery, deprecate ConstantScoreQuery. If somebody implements the
> Filter's getDocIdSet()/bits() methods he has nothing more to do, he could
> just use the filter as a normal query.
> I do not want to completely convert Filters to ConstantScoreQueries. The idea
> is to combine Queries and Filters in such a way, that every Filter can
> automatically be used at all places where a Query can be used (e.g. also
> alone a search query without any other constraint). For that, the abstract
> Query methods must be implemented and return a "default" weight for Filters
> which is the current ConstantScore Logic. If the filter is used as a real
> filter (where the API wants a Filter), the getDocIdSet part could be directly
> used, the weight is useless (as it is currently, too). The constant score
> default implementation is only used when the Filter is used as a Query (e.g.
> as direct parameter to Searcher.search()). For the special case of
> BooleanQueries combining Filters and Queries the idea is, to optimize the
> BooleanQuery logic in such a way, that it detects if a BooleanClause is a
> Filter (using instanceof) and then directly uses the Filter API and not take
> the burden of the ConstantScoreQuery (see LUCENE-1345).
> Here some ideas how to implement Searcher.search() with Query and Filter:
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a Filter as the only parameter. As every
> Filter is also a ConstantScoreQuery, the query can be executed and returns
> score 1.0 for all matching documents.
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a Query as the only parameter: No change,
> all is the same as before
> - User runs Searcher.search() using a BooleanQuery as parameter: If the
> BooleanQuery does not contain a Query that is subclass of Filter (the new
> Filter) everything as usual. If the BooleanQuery only contains exactly one
> Filter and nothing else the Filter is used as a constant score query. If
> BooleanQuery contains clauses with Queries and Filters the new algorithm
> could be used: The queries are executed and the results filtered with the
> filters.
> For the user this has the main advantage: That he can construct his query
> using a simplified API without thinking about Filters oder Queries, you can
> just combine clauses together. The scorer/weight logic then identifies the
> cases to use the filter or the query weight API. Just like the query
> optimizer of a RDB.
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
