On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We are open to feedback, what issues are you having with
> ConstantScoreWeight? It is true that it does not bring much compared to
> Weight anymore now that we removed query normalization. The only useful
> thing it has is the default explain() implementation.
I guess I just don't have any good examples to follow for how to
implement it, and
Filter itself, for example, wasn't using it either. Plus there was additional
convenience in not having to make a Query subclass...
At the moment I have pulled solr's copy of it and rolled the code from
that up into
the next abstract class up which we had.
Actually, I'm looking at the direct subclasses of that as well, and it
seems like
there are two common cases:
1) Queries where we get the DocIdSet from some external source like a
database, which we could possibly switch to some kind of numeric values
/ point set query.
2) Queries where we do something like a TermsQuery but without keeping all
the terms in memory at the same time... which there might be another way
to do, but I'm not really sure.
TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
