[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10048?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17398614#comment-17398614
 ] 

Michael Sokolov commented on LUCENE-10048:
------------------------------------------

> Ankur I wonder if encoding the scores more efficiently would be an option, 
> e.g. using a bfloat16? 

Or perhaps imposing a constraint on suppliers that scores must be < some bound, 
maybe 2^16 (still encoded as an int) and then  (clipping, throwing an error, 
rejecting terms)  when they are out of bounds

> Bypass total frequency check if field uses custom term frequency
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-10048
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10048
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Tony Xu
>            Priority: Minor
>
> For all fields whose index option is not *IndexOptions.NONE*. There is a 
> check on per field total token count (i.e. field-length) to ensure we don't 
> index too many tokens. This is done by accumulating the token's 
> *TermFrequencyAttribute.*
>  
> Given that currently Lucene allows custom term frequency attached to each 
> token and the usage of the frequency can be pretty wild. It is possible to 
> have the following case where the check fails with only a few tokens that 
> have large frequencies. Currently Lucene will skip indexing the whole 
> document.
> *"foo|<very large number> bar|<very large number>"*
>  
> What should be way to inform the indexing chain not to check the field length?
> A related observation, when custom term frequency is in use, user is not 
> likely to use the similarity for this field. Maybe we can offer a way to 
> specify that, too?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to