ok Mark,
i will run a couple of test with my way of collecting terms and yours, if i don't see
reasonable improvement i will use yours, otherwise i'll keep changing the code as i
have been doing for more than a year, my search engine needs very high performance, i
also don't reuse query object, my index is updated very often, so, in my case if i can
speedup/save resource i am able to pay the price of break these requirements simply
because i don't need them.
Thank you,
Ciao Korfut.
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:15:14
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
>Here are some very important reasons why getTerms() shouldn't be added as a method to
>Query:
>
>Query objects are seen by Lucene users as reusable objects.
>
>Eg they could be used as routing queries which are run repeatedly to classify
>incoming documents.
>
>They are are re-usable across multiple indexes and index versions ie they hold no
>state about
>specific indexes. Thats the current contract.
>
>If you decided to slap a method called getTerms() on a query which returns expansions
>of multi-terms
>that is adding state which effectively ties the Query instance to a particular index
>and a particular
>snapshot of that index's content, rendering the query unreusable.
>
>It is useful to think of Queries in two forms:
>
>1) High-level, reusable, index-and index-version independent objects (returned by
>QueryParser)
>2) Targetted queries associated with a particular version of an index, used briefly
>then discarded.
>
>Now. Type 2 ("targetted") is the query returned by query.rewrite(reader) and was
>until recently used
>exclusively by the search process and subsequently thrown away.
>
>The new highlighting code also requires the use of "targetted queries" but it is not
>possible to get
>hold of the targetted query that is the by-product of the search. This is why the
>caller is expected
>to create a "targetted" query by calling rewrite THEN calling the search and
>highlight functions with
>this version.
>
>
>These query types are important distinctions to preserve and the getTerms() proposal
>doesn't respect these subtle differences in query usage.
>
>
>Cheers
>Mark
>
>
>
>PS
>>>I looked at your code quickly, can you confirm that the following scenario is what
>>>happens when you run a search with MultiTermQuery?
>
>Not true any more. I think you're looking at outdated code.
>See my recent post which described how I ripped out the rewrite calls in the latest
>highlighter and made
>it the caller's responsibility:
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lucene-dev&m=106507977317157&w=2
>As for "prohibited" - note the highlighter takes a "prohibited" parameter too.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
