Doesn't BQ rewrite itself if it has only one clause? Or maybe if there were more than one clause, and then all but one of them had null scorers (on SHOULD clauses) you could wind up in that state?
Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:21 PM, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working with some folks who did some profiling and noticed that > ScorerSupplier.cost() can be expensive (as the javadocs say). cost() says > only to call it if necessary. Unfortunately, a BooleanQuery is going to > call cost() (via BooleanWeight.scorer() even if ultimately no Query in the > tree cares what the cost is. I'm not sure if that's a perf bug or not; > it's hard to tell. > > The expensive part of cost() for Boolean2ScorerSupplier is over in > MinShouldMatchSumScorer.cost which creates a PriorityQueue every time, even > if trivially numScorers == 1. That's a weird case... why do we even need a > Boolean2ScorerSupplier around one clause; couldn't that clause be returned > from the outer weight, BooleanWeight.scorerSupplier() close to the end as > an optimization? I could file an issue. > > ~ David > -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www. > solrenterprisesearchserver.com >
