[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1896?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12752780#action_12752780
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-1896:
----------------------------------
you could have a queryNorm implementation that always returned 0.01f ... but if
you were dealing with weights that were all really large, it might not be
enough ... and ify ou were dealing with weights that were *extremely* small
low, it might actually be counter productive. that's why the default isn't
arbitrary -- it's a function of the weight.
i never said it was a *reason* why queryNorm was there ... i just said it was
an advatnge i've observed in having it.
I also didn't argue in favor of adding anything about that to hte javadocs -- i
mentioned it only to explain one type of benefit that can arise from have "a
uniform normalization factor computed from the sumOfSquareWeights for the query
which is then applied to each of the clauses of the query"
> Modify confusing javadoc for queryNorm
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1896
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1896
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Javadocs
> Reporter: Jiri Kuhn
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> See http://markmail.org/message/arai6silfiktwcer
> The javadoc confuses me as well.
--
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
