[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8828?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16858680#comment-16858680 ]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-8828: --------------------------------------------------------- Commit cd030efa9c91a0da0a0b9d4a4003161bb775ed61 in lucene-solr's branch refs/heads/branch_8x from Alan Woodward [ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;h=cd030ef ] LUCENE-8828: Make unorderedNoOverlaps a separate IntervalsSource > Fix Intervals.unordered() without overlaps > ------------------------------------------ > > Key: LUCENE-8828 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8828 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Alan Woodward > Assignee: Alan Woodward > Priority: Major > Attachments: LUCENE-8828.patch > > > LUCENE-8300 added an option to Intervals.unordered() which would attempt to > find intervals that contained all of a set of subintervals where none of the > subintervals overlapped. Unfortunately, this implementation was buggy, and > could miss documents depending on the order in which the subintervals were > passed to the factory method. > After some digging around, I think that it is not in fact possible to > implement this in anything other than n! time, because of the need to > minimize the resulting intervals. My proposal is to remove the boolean flag, > and instead implement an Intervals.unorderedNoOverlaps() method that takes > only two subsources, and rewrites NO_OVERLAPS(a, b) to OR(ORDERED(a, b), > ORDERED(b, a)). The usual simplifications will apply here, so NO_OVERLAPS(a, > a) will end up as ORDERED(a, a) -- 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