[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16802687#comment-16802687
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8477:
---------------------------------------------------------
Commit 3a63c58db3074d4a0a2dbf4cf3147f6d6cdf73ca in lucene-solr's branch
refs/heads/master from Alan Woodward
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=3a63c58 ]
LUCENE-8477: Add CHANGES entry
> Improve handling of inner disjunctions in intervals
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-8477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8477
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Alan Woodward
> Assignee: Alan Woodward
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 8.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-8477.patch, LUCENE-8477.patch, LUCENE-8477.patch,
> LUCENE-8477.patch
>
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> The current implementation of the disjunction interval produced by
> {{Intervals.or}} is a direct implementation of the OR operator from the Vigna
> paper. This produces minimal intervals, meaning that (a) is preferred over
> (a b), and (b) also over (a b). This has advantages when it comes to
> counting intervals for scoring, but also has drawbacks when it comes to
> matching. For example, a phrase query for ((a OR (a b)) BLOCK (c)) will not
> match the document (a b c), because (a) will be preferred over (a b), and (a
> c) does not match.
> This ticket is to discuss the best way of dealing with disjunctions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
