[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14279175#comment-14279175
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-6184:
--------------------------------------
Yes, I think this way we could handle disjunctions in BooleanScorer (including
minShouldMatch)! But this should be a separate issue?
> BooleanScorer should better deal with sparse clauses
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6184
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6184
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Assignee: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Trunk, 5.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6184.patch, LUCENE-6184.patch
>
>
> The way that BooleanScorer works looks like this:
> {code}
> for each (window of 2048 docs) {
> for each (optional scorer) {
> scorer.score(window)
> }
> }
> {code}
> This is not efficient for very sparse clauses (doc freq much lower than
> maxDoc/2048) since we keep on scoring windows of documents that do not match
> anything. BooleanScorer2 currently performs better in those cases.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
