Well, you could wrap the C | D filter as a Query (using ConstantScoreQuery), and then add that as a SHOULD clause on your toplevel BooleanQuery?
Mike On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Shaun Senecal <ssenecal.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > At first I thought so, yes, but then I realised that the query I wanted to > execute was A | B | C | D and in reality I was executing (A | B) & (C | D). > I guess my unit tests were missing some cases and don't currently catch > this. > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Michael McCandless < > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > >> You should be able to do exactly what you were doing on 2.4, right? >> (By setting the rewrite method). >> >> Mike >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Shaun Senecal <ssenecal.w...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Thanks for the explanation Mike. It looks like I have no choice but to >> move >> > any queries which throw TooManyClauses to be Filters. Sadly, this means a >> > max query time of 6s under load unless I can find a way to rewrite the >> query >> > to span a Query and a Filter. >> > >> > >> > Thanks again >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Michael McCandless < >> > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Shaun Senecal <ssenecal.w...@gmail.com >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Up to Lucene 2.4, this has been working out for us. However, in >> >> > Lucene 2.9 this breaks since rewrite() now returns a >> >> > ConstantScoreQuery. >> >> >> >> You can get back to the 2.4 behavior by calling >> >> prefixQuery.setRewriteMethod(prefixQuery.SCORING_BOOLEAN_QUERY_REWRITE) >> >> before calling rewrite(). >> >> >> >> > Is there a way I can know that a ConstantScoreQuery will match at >> >> > least 1 term (if not, I dont want to add it to the BooleanQuery)? >> >> >> >> There is a new method in 2.9: MultiTermQuery.getTotalNumberOfTerms(), >> >> which returns how many terms were visited during rewrite. Would that >> >> work? >> >> >> >> > My understanding is that Lucene will apply the Filter (C | D) first, >> >> > limiting the result set, then apply the Query (A | B). Is this >> >> > correct? >> >> >> >> Actually the filter & query clauses are AND'd in a sort of leapfrog >> >> fashion, taking turns skipping up to the other's doc ID and only >> >> accepting a doc ID when they both skip to the same point. But this >> >> (the mechanics of how Lucene takes a filter into account) is an >> >> implementation detail and is likely to change. >> >> >> >> > If so, the end result is essentially the query: (A | B) & (C | D) >> >> >> >> Except that C, D contribute no scoring information, if scoring >> >> matters. If scoring doesn't matter, entirely (even for A, B), you >> >> should use a collector that does not call score() at all to save CPU. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
