[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1630?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12720623#action_12720623
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1630:
--------------------------------------------

Still working through the patch... here's what I found so far:


  * You forgot to fill in the "?" in CHANGES :)

  * Can you change the default for BooleanQuery.allowDocsOutOfOrder to
    true?

  * How come {{Document doc(int n, FieldSelector fieldSelector) throws
    CorruptIndexException, IOException}} is added to Searcher.java in
    your patch?

  * Rethinking fixing Searchable now vs later: first off, we've
    already changed the interface in 2.9 (added Collector); second
    off, in our changes with Fieldable we both changed our policy and
    the interface, in one release.  Maybe we should in fact switch to
    QueryWeight?  (I'm not sure).  This patch already breaks back
    compat of Searcher (there are new abstract methods), anyway.

  * Instead of saying "there is a chance" in the javadoc in BQ, can
    you change it to say "BQ will return an out-of-order scorer if
    requested"?  (There's no chance in the matter...).

  * In fact, DocumentsWriter very much needs for the docs to be scored
    in order (it breaks out of the loop on the first out-of-bounds
    doc).  Can you put that back?

  * As much as I love all the little code cleanups, can you resist the
    temptation, especially in such large patches as this?  I think a
    separate issue that does pure code cleanups would be a great way
    to fix these, going forward...

  * "not need anymore" --> "not needed anymore"

  * We can now make things final in BS2, like countingSumScorer,
    *Scorers, etc?


> Mating Collector and Scorer on doc Id orderness
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1630
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1630
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1630.patch, LUCENE-1630.patch, LUCENE-1630.patch
>
>
> This is a spin off of LUCENE-1593. This issue proposes to expose appropriate 
> API on Scorer and Collector such that one can create an optimized Collector 
> based on a given Scorer's doc-id orderness and vice versa. Copied from 
> LUCENE-1593, here is the list of changes:
> # Deprecate Weight and create QueryWeight (abstract class) with a new 
> scorer(reader, scoreDocsInOrder), replacing the current scorer(reader) 
> method. QueryWeight implements Weight, while score(reader) calls 
> score(reader, false /* out-of-order */) and scorer(reader, scoreDocsInOrder) 
> is defined abstract.
> #* Also add QueryWeightWrapper to wrap a given Weight implementation. This 
> one will also be deprecated, as well as package-private.
> #* Add to Query variants of createWeight and weight which return QueryWeight. 
> For now, I prefer to add a default impl which wraps the Weight variant 
> instead of overriding in all Query extensions, and in 3.0 when we remove the 
> Weight variants - override in all extending classes.
> # Add to Scorer isOutOfOrder with a default to false, and override in BS to 
> true.
> # Modify BooleanWeight to extend QueryWeight and implement the new scorer 
> method to return BS2 or BS based on the number of required scorers and 
> setAllowOutOfOrder.
> # Add to Collector an abstract _acceptsDocsOutOfOrder_ which returns 
> true/false.
> #* Use it in IndexSearcher.search methods, that accept a Collector, in order 
> to create the appropriate Scorer, using the new QueryWeight.
> #* Provide a static create method to TFC and TSDC which accept this as an 
> argument and creates the proper instance.
> #* Wherever we create a Collector (TSDC or TFC), always ask for out-of-order 
> Scorer and check on the resulting Scorer isOutOfOrder(), so that we can 
> create the optimized Collector instance.
> # Modify IndexSearcher to use all of the above logic.
> The only class I'm worried about, and would like to verify with you, is 
> Searchable. If we want to deprecate all the search methods on IndexSearcher, 
> Searcher and Searchable which accept Weight and add new ones which accept 
> QueryWeight, we must do the following:
> * Deprecate Searchable in favor of Searcher.
> * Add to Searcher the new QueryWeight variants. Here we have two choices: (1) 
> break back-compat and add them as abstract (like we've done with the new 
> Collector method) or (2) add them with a default impl to call the Weight 
> versions, documenting these will become abstract in 3.0.
> * Have Searcher extend UnicastRemoteObject and have RemoteSearchable extend 
> Searcher. That's the part I'm a little bit worried about - Searchable 
> implements java.rmi.Remote, which means there could be an implementation out 
> there which implements Searchable and extends something different than 
> UnicastRemoteObject, like Activeable. I think there is very small chance this 
> has actually happened, but would like to confirm with you guys first.
> * Add a deprecated, package-private, SearchableWrapper which extends Searcher 
> and delegates all calls to the Searchable member.
> * Deprecate all uses of Searchable and add Searcher instead, defaulting the 
> old ones to use SearchableWrapper.
> * Make all the necessary changes to IndexSearcher, MultiSearcher etc. 
> regarding overriding these new methods.
> One other optimization that was discussed in LUCENE-1593 is to expose a 
> topScorer() API (on Weight) which returns a Scorer that its score(Collector) 
> will be called, and additionally add a start() method to DISI. That will 
> allow Scorers to initialize either on start() or score(Collector). This was 
> proposed mainly because of BS and BS2 which check if they are initialized in 
> every call to next(), skipTo() and score(). Personally I prefer to see that 
> in a separate issue, following that one (as it might add methods to 
> QueryWeight).

-- 
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

Reply via email to