[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2686?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12917672#action_12917672
]
Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-2686:
--------------------------------------
For the record, the reason for calling score() in the current way is to avoid
the housekeeping of recording which scorer(s) actually matched.
Instead one could perhaps walk the binary tree in the scorer queue heap and
only add to the sum score and recurse into the tree when the current doc of the
scorer equals the current doc. Maybe this can even done without recursive calls.
> DisjunctionSumScorer should not call .score on sub scorers until consumer
> calls .score
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2686
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2686
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.1, 4.0
>
>
> Spinoff from java-user thread "question about Scorer.freq()" from Koji...
> BooleanScorer2 uses DisjunctionSumScorer to score only-SHOULD-clause boolean
> queries.
> But, this scorer does too much work for collectors that never call .score,
> because it scores while it's matching. It should only call .score on the
> subs when the caller calls its .score.
> This also has the side effect of messing up advanced collectors that gather
> the freq() of the subs (using LUCENE-2590).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
