[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12714762#action_12714762
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1614:
------------------------------------
I was wondering if instead of adding an assert to score(Collector, int) on the
doc ID not being -1, we create another method score(Collector, int, int /*
firstDocID */) and deprecate the current one.
It will behave exactly as score(Collector, int), only I think it makes it more
explicit that we require nextDoc() to be called before. The documentation can
state that the method expects the first doc ID and not a negative number.
Besides, the code today does: (1) nextDoc() and (2) score(Collector, int) which
then calls docID(). If we allow to pass the first doc ID, we can use the value
that's returned from nextDoc() (e.g., score(Collector, int, nextDoc())).
What do you think?
> Add next() and skipTo() variants to DocIdSetIterator that return the current
> doc, instead of boolean
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1614
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1614
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1614.patch, LUCENE-1614.patch, LUCENE-1614.patch,
> LUCENE-1614.patch, LUCENE-1614.patch, LUCENE-1614.patch, LUCENE-1614.patch,
> LUCENE-1614.patch
>
>
> See
> http://www.nabble.com/Another-possible-optimization---now-in-DocIdSetIterator-p23223319.html
> for the full discussion. The basic idea is to add variants to those two
> methods that return the current doc they are at, to save successive calls to
> doc(). If there are no more docs, return -1. A summary of what was discussed
> so far:
> # Deprecate those two methods.
> # Add nextDoc() and skipToDoc(int) that return doc, with default impl in DISI
> (calls next() and skipTo() respectively, and will be changed to abstract in
> 3.0).
> #* I actually would like to propose an alternative to the names: advance()
> and advance(int) - the first advances by one, the second advances to target.
> # Wherever these are used, do something like '(doc = advance()) >= 0' instead
> of comparing to -1 for improved performance.
> I will post a patch shortly
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
