Paul, Would there be a way to get the best of both worlds? E.g., could you factor the specializable score combination differently, so that one method was called with each new score to generate a state entity, while a final method computed the score from the state. For both sum and max, the state entity could just be a float, not requiring an array. The final operation for the sum with coord case would do the coord. I haven't looked at the code carefully enough to see if this actually works, but it seemed worth mentioning.
Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Elschot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Boolean Scorer > > Chuck, > > On Friday 10 December 2004 22:16, Chuck Williams wrote: > > I'm just a user and haven't tried Paul's DisjunctionScorer yet, but I > > must say this sounds like a great idea. The ability to specialize > > combineScores() is a significant advantage. ... > > In the latest version I dropped the combineScores() and inlined > the summing (in advanceAfterCurrent()). > The main reason is that passing the scoring values of the scorers > in an array does not scale well, ie. it will always cost an amount of > work in proportion to the number of scorers, even if only one of > them actually has a score. > > Changing this is should be no problem, though. > > Regards, > Paul Elschot > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
