Andrzej Bialecki wrote on 08/28/2006 09:19 AM: > Chuck Williams wrote: >> I presume your search steps are anded, as in typical drill-downs? >> >> >From a Lucene standpoint, each sequence of steps is a BooleanQuery of >> required clauses, one for each step. To add a step, you extend the >> BooleanQuery with a new clause. To not re-evaluate the full query, >> > > ... umm, guys, wouldn't a series of QueryFilter's work much better in > this case? If some of the clauses are repeatable, then filtering > results through a cached BitSet in such filtered query would work > nicely, right? > If the possible initial steps comprise a small finite set, I could see that as a winner. In my app for instance, the drill-down selectors are dynamic and drawn from a large set of possibilities. It's hard to see how any small set of filters would be much of a benefit. A large set of filters would consume too much space. For a 10 million document node at 1.25 megabytes per filter even a couple hundred filters adds up to something significant.
As I understand things, filters take considerably more time to initially create but then can more than make this up through repetitive use. So they are a winner iff there are a small number of specific steps that are frequently and disproportionately used. Chuck --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
