On Friday 11 November 2005 23:04, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : Wouldn't it make sense to have BooleanFilter, > : TermFilter, MultiTermFilter, RangeFilter... fammily to > : "mirror" xxxQuery world with same idioms and > : interfaces? Is this the direction allready taken in > : Lucene development (an alternative would be to > : parametrize existiong Query world). How I see it > : functionaly, at a moment filters (and thir > : combination) are the only way to use fast "pure > : boolean" model. > : > : Does this what I just said makes any sense? > > It makes perfect sense, and you have grasped a ot of the possibilities. > While making a version of Filter varient of every Query class is my gut > instinct, there has in fact been discussion about generalizing Queries so > that they can have "non-scoring" mode. these issues have all been > mentioned in LUCENE-383 ... > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-383 > > One of the big reasons why it might make sense to use Queries instead of > Filters even if you don't care about scoring is when you have a large set > of very restrictive conditions. (ie: A BooleanQuery consisting of many > TermQueries). the BooleanScorer can make good decisisons to skip over > large sets of documents -- sometimes ignoring sub queries entirely -- when > one sub query only matches a few documents because of hte flexability of > the Scorer API. > > The Filter API on the other hand doesn't have this flexability. There is > not way for a ChainedFilter/BooleanFilter to know that it can skip over > one of it's sub filters, or ask one of it's sub filters to only look at > certain documents.
This FilteredQuery will skip over documents that do not pass the filter: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-330 even when it is nested in itself. Regards, Paul Elschot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
