: Oh, BTW: I just found the DisjunctionMaxQuery class, recently added it : seems. Do you think this query structure could benefit from using it : instead of the BooleanQuery?
DisjunctionMaxQuery kicks ass (in my opinion), and It certainly seems like (from your query structure) it's something you might want to consider using, but I don't know thta it will sove the performance problems you're having -- I can't think of any situations in which DisjunctionMaxScorer could skip more docs/terms then DisjuntionSumScorer. I believe Paul already suggested writting a completely new type of specialized Query/Scorer for your purposes -- one possibility I can imaging is a specialized version of BooleanQuery that skips past documents in the optional scorers once it's gotten a score from at least one other optional scorer (or N other optional scorers). Then as long as you're carefull to list the really usefull sub-clauses (ie: the shorter fields, with the higher boosts) first, you can save a lot of calculation with (what i expect would be) little loss in functionality. for example, looking at your sample query... +(url:term1^4.0 anchor:term1^2.0 content:term1 title:term1^1.5 host:term1^2.0) +(url:term2^4.0 anchor:term2^2.0 content:term2 title:term2^1.5 host:term2^2.0) url:"term1 term2"~2147483647^4.0 anchor:"term1 term2"~4^2.0 content:"term1 term2"~2147483647 title:"term1 term2"~2147483647^1.5 host:"term1 term2"~2147483647^2.0 ...if you reordered those first two clauses like this... +(url:term1^4.0 anchor:term1^2.0 host:term1^2.0 title:term1^1.5 content:term1) ...once the Scorers from the url term query and the achor term query have chimed in with a non-zero score for a document, the scores from the other sub-clauses maynot be very relevant in the final score calculation ... so why not skip them? -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
