[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12704566#action_12704566
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1614:
------------------------------------
bq. Not sure what you mean by "testAndSet-like version"?
I mean, instead of having the code call check(8), get true and then advance(8),
just call checkAndAdvance(8) which returns true if 8 is supported and false
otherwise, AND moves to 8. I don't propose to replace check() with it as
sometimes you might want to check a couple of DISIs before making a decision to
which doc to advance, but it could save calling advance() in case check()
returns true.
bq. Yes it does have a good default impl, I think.
It _will_ have a good default impl, I can guarantee to try :). What I meant is
that we should have clear documentation about check() and nextDoc() and the
possibility that check will be called for doc Id 'X' and later nextDoc or
advance will be called with 'X', in that case the impl must ensure 'X' is not
skipped, as is done today by TermScorer for example.
So should I add this check()?
> Add next() and skipTo() variants to DocIdSetIterator that return the current
> doc, instead of boolean
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1614
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> See
> http://www.nabble.com/Another-possible-optimization---now-in-DocIdSetIterator-p23223319.html
> for the full discussion. The basic idea is to add variants to those two
> methods that return the current doc they are at, to save successive calls to
> doc(). If there are no more docs, return -1. A summary of what was discussed
> so far:
> # Deprecate those two methods.
> # Add nextDoc() and skipToDoc(int) that return doc, with default impl in DISI
> (calls next() and skipTo() respectively, and will be changed to abstract in
> 3.0).
> #* I actually would like to propose an alternative to the names: advance()
> and advance(int) - the first advances by one, the second advances to target.
> # Wherever these are used, do something like '(doc = advance()) >= 0' instead
> of comparing to -1 for improved performance.
> I will post a patch shortly
--
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
