[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12739529#action_12739529
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1771:
--------------------------------------------
Hmm... shouldn't explain take the top-level Searcher (not IndexSearcher)?
bq. I think we have to use the top reader for that (impls already expect it) -
so you could have double caching problems where Weight is still used. I think
we will have to live with that though.
Maybe instead we should simply throw an exception if
QueryWeight.explain(IndexReader, int) is called, stating that the Query impl
must instead implement the new explain (that takes the top-level Searcher)?
Would that be safer than risking accidental 2X mem usage due to a custom
Query's explain?
> Using explain may double ram reqs for fieldcaches when using
> ValueSourceQuery/CustomScoreQuery or for ConstantScoreQuerys that use a
> caching Filter.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1771
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1771
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Mark Miller
> Assignee: Mark Miller
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1771.patch, LUCENE-1771.patch, LUCENE-1771.patch,
> LUCENE-1771.patch
>
>
--
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
