Glad to hear it! Le mer. 6 août 2025, 22:32, Thomas Barr <twb...@me.com> a écrit :
> For what it's worth, TermInSetQuery worked great! Thanks! > > > On Aug 4, 2025, at 11:26 PM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Your question suggests that you are creating a huge BooleanQuery to > > identify these documents. A TermInSetQuery should perform better. > > > > Doing better would require to better understand what you are trying to > > achieve. For instance if you end up with such a large list of terms > because > > you're trying to evaluate a join, you may want to look at Lucene's > support > > for suery-time joins: > > > https://lucene.apache.org/core/10_1_0/join/org/apache/lucene/search/join/package-summary.html#query-time-joins-heading > > > > Le mar. 5 août 2025, 05:48, Thomas Barr <twb...@me.com.invalid> a écrit > : > > > >> I have a medium-sized (~10m) Lucene index and I frequently want to > >> repeatedly search within a subset of around ~100k documents. I can > increase > >> MaxClauseCount and build up a huge TermQuery, keep that around, then > build > >> a BooleanQuery out of the result at runtime, but the resulting query is > >> quite slow. The now deprecated Filter would have been a good option > with a > >> BitSet, but that’s deprecated. > >> > >> Any thoughts on the best way to do this? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> -twb > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > >> Adrien > > Adrien
