[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6227?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14312168#comment-14312168
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-6227:
-------------------------------------

ConjunctionScorer's required bucket could now be DISI, in that it doesn't need 
Scorer right? It only scores 'requiredScoring'. 

As far as the new Occur, i like it, but I think its a little confusing that it 
has the same toString() impl as MUST. Can these be different? It would be nice 
to think about e.g. adding queryparser support for this Occur in the future.

> Add BooleanClause.Occur.FILTER
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-6227
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6227
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Adrien Grand
>            Assignee: Adrien Grand
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: Trunk, 5.1
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-6227.patch, LUCENE-6227.patch
>
>
> Now that we have weight-level control of whether scoring is needed or not, we 
> could add a new clause type to BooleanQuery. It would behave like MUST exept 
> that it would not participate in scoring.
> Why do we need it given that we already have FilteredQuery? The idea is that 
> by having a single query that performs conjunctions, we could potentially 
> take better decisions. It's not ready to replace FilteredQuery yet as 
> FilteredQuery has handling of random-access filters that BooleanQuery 
> doesn't, but it's a first step towards that direction and eventually 
> FilteredQuery would just rewrite to a BooleanQuery.
> I've been calling this new clause type FILTER so far, but feel free to 
> propose a better name.



--
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

Reply via email to