The motivation for the constant-score rewrite is simply performance. As per the Javadoc:
"*This method is faster than the BooleanQuery rewrite methods when the number of matched terms or matched documents is non-trivial. Also, it will never hit an errant BooleanQuery.TooManyClauses exception.*" So that's a second reason - to avoid the max clause count limitation of Boolean Query. See: https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/MultiTermQuery.html#CONSTANT_SCORE_REWRITE https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_4_0/core/org/apache/lucene/search/WildcardQuery.html -- Jack Krupansky On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Modassar Ather <modather1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please help me understand why queries like wildcard, prefix and few others > are re-written into constant score query? > Why the scoring factors are not taken into consideration in such queries? > > Please correct me if I am wrong that this behavior is per the query type > irrespective of the parser used. > > Thanks, > Modassar > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Modassar Ather <modather1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for your response Ahmet. > > > > Best, > > Modassar > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think wildcard queries fl:networ* are re-written into Constant Score > >> Query. > >> fl=*,score should returns same score for all documents that are > retrieved. > >> > >> Ahmet > >> > >> > >> > >> On Monday, January 4, 2016 12:22 PM, Modassar Ather < > >> modather1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Kindly help me understand how will relevance ranking differ int > following > >> searches. > >> > >> query : fl:network > >> query : fl:networ* > >> > >> What I am observing that the results returned are different in both of > >> them > >> in a way that the top documents returned for q=fl:network is not present > >> in > >> the top results of q=fl:networ*. > >> For example for q=fl:network I am getting top documents having around 20 > >> occurrence of network whereas the top result of q=fl:networ* has only > >> couple of occurrence of network. > >> I am aware of the underlying normalization process participation in > >> relevance ranking of documents but not able to understand such a > >> difference > >> in the ranking of result for the queries. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Modassar > >> > > > > >
