[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3102?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13034841#comment-13034841
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-3102:
--------------------------------------------
Patch looks great! But, can we rename curupto -> curUpto (and same for
curbase)? Ie, so it matches the other camelCaseVariables we have here...
Thank you!
> Few issues with CachingCollector
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3102
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3102
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.2, 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3102-factory.patch, LUCENE-3102.patch,
> LUCENE-3102.patch
>
>
> CachingCollector (introduced in LUCENE-1421) has few issues:
> # Since the wrapped Collector may support out-of-order collection, the
> document IDs cached may be out-of-order (depends on the Query) and thus
> replay(Collector) will forward document IDs out-of-order to a Collector that
> may not support it.
> # It does not clear cachedScores + cachedSegs upon exceeding RAM limits
> # I think that instead of comparing curScores to null, in order to determine
> if scores are requested, we should have a specific boolean - for clarity
> # This check "if (base + nextLength > maxDocsToCache)" (line 168) can be
> relaxed? E.g., what if nextLength is, say, 512K, and I cannot satisfy the
> maxDocsToCache constraint, but if it was 10K I would? Wouldn't we still want
> to try and cache them?
> Also:
> * The TODO in line 64 (having Collector specify needsScores()) -- why do we
> need that if CachingCollector ctor already takes a boolean "cacheScores"? I
> think it's better defined explicitly than implicitly?
> * Let's introduce a factory method for creating a specialized version if
> scoring is requested / not (i.e., impl the TODO in line 189)
> * I think it's a useful collector, which stands on its own and not specific
> to grouping. Can we move it to core?
> * How about using OpenBitSet instead of int[] for doc IDs?
> ** If the number of hits is big, we'd gain some RAM back, and be able to
> cache more entries
> ** NOTE: OpenBitSet can only be used for in-order collection only. So we can
> use that if the wrapped Collector does not support out-of-order
> * Do you think we can modify this Collector to not necessarily wrap another
> Collector? We have such Collector which stores (in-memory) all matching doc
> IDs + scores (if required). Those are later fed into several processes that
> operate on them (e.g. fetch more info from the index etc.). I am thinking, we
> can make CachingCollector *optionally* wrap another Collector and then
> someone can reuse it by setting RAM limit to unlimited (we should have a
> constant for that) in order to simply collect all matching docs + scores.
> * I think a set of dedicated unit tests for this class alone would be good.
> That's it so far. Perhaps, if we do all of the above, more things will pop up.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
