[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9628?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17243150#comment-17243150
]
Mayya Sharipova commented on LUCENE-9628:
-----------------------------------------
[~jtibshirani] Thank you for raising these very good issues.
I agree with you and [~jpountz] about switching to a check of
`ScoreMode#isExhaustive == false` instead of just `scoreMode ==
ScoreMode.TOP_SCORES` in `BooleanWeight`. I will address this.
---
About `ConstantScoreQuery`:
* I will see how we can addressed `TOP_DOCS` case as well without using
`COMPLETE_NO_SCORES` for `innerWeight` all the time.
* agree with [~jpountz] that we can improve javadoc of `ScoreMode`
> Make sure to account for ScoreMode.TOP_DOCS in queries
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9628
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9628
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Test
> Components: core/search
> Reporter: Julie Tibshirani
> Priority: Minor
>
> I noticed a few places where we are directly check the {{ScoreMode}} type
> that should perhaps be generalized. These could affect whether numeric sort
> optimization is applied:
> * In {{BooleanWeight#bulkScorer}}, we check if score mode is {{TOP_SCORES}}
> and if so, force non-bulk scoring. Should we expand this to include modes
> like {{TOP_DOCS}}?
> * In {{ConstantScoreQuery}}, we create the delegate weight with a hardcoded
> {{COMPLETE_NO_SCORES}}. I'm not sure it actually causes problems, but it
> seems like this doesn't handle {{TOP_DOCS}} correctly.
> Apologies this issue isn’t more precise – I am not up-to-speed on the numeric
> sort optimization but wanted to raise these in case they’re helpful.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
