Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.8.0 RC1
Smoke tester only SUCCESS! [1:22:37.441415] +1 (binding) Jan > 22. sep. 2023 kl. 07:48 skrev Patrick Zhai : > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.8.0 > > The artifacts can be downloaded from: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.8.0-RC1-rev-d914b3722bd5b8ef31ccf7e8ddc638a87fd648db > > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: > > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.8.0-RC1-rev-d914b3722bd5b8ef31ccf7e8ddc638a87fd648db > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, as there's a weekend, the vote > will last until 2023-09-27 06:00 UTC. > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > Here is my +1 (non-binding)
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.8.0 RC1
+1 SUCCESS! [0:49:28.203159] On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:44 AM Adrien Grand wrote: > +1 SUCCESS! [0:54:58.932481] > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:18 PM Uwe Schindler wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I verified the release with the usual tools and my workflow: > > > > Policeman Jenkins ran smoketester for me with Java 11 and Java 17: > > https://jenkins.thetaphi.de/job/Lucene-Release-Tester/28/console > > > > SUCCESS! [1:10:15.704228] > > > > In addition I checked the changes entries and ran Luke with Java 21 GA > > (released two days ago). All fine! > > > > +1 to release! > > > > Am 22.09.2023 um 07:48 schrieb Patrick Zhai: > > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.8.0 > > > > > > The artifacts can be downloaded from: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.8.0-RC1-rev-d914b3722bd5b8ef31ccf7e8ddc638a87fd648db > > > > > > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: > > > > > > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.8.0-RC1-rev-d914b3722bd5b8ef31ccf7e8ddc638a87fd648db > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, as there's a weekend, the > > > vote will last until 2023-09-27 06:00 UTC. > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > Here is my +1 (non-binding) > > > > -- > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > https://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > -- > Adrien > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: Can the BooleanQuery execution be optimized with same term queries
Thanks for letting me know, I'm glad you like them!
Le ven. 22 sept. 2023, 16:36, YouPeng Yang a
écrit :
> Hi Adrien
>Glad to have your opinion.I am reading your excellent articles on
> elastic blog.
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Adrien Grand 于2023年9月19日周二 21:32写道：
>
>> Hi Yang,
>>
>> It would be legal for Lucene to perform such optimizations indeed.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:27 PM YouPeng Yang
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All
>> >
>> > Sorry to bother you.The happiest thing is studying the Lucene source
>> codes,thank you for all the great works .
>> >
>> >
>> > About the BooleanQuery.I am encountered by a question about the
>> execution of BooleanQuery:although,BooleanQuery#rewrite has done some
>> works to remove duplicate FILTER,SHOULD clauses.however still the same term
>> query can been executed the several times.
>> >
>> > I copied the test code in the TestBooleanQuery to confirm my
>> assumption.
>> >
>> > Unit Test Code as follows:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > BooleanQuery.Builder qBuilder = new BooleanQuery.Builder();
>> >
>> > qBuilder = new BooleanQuery.Builder();
>> >
>> > qBuilder.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "b")), Occur.FILTER);
>> >
>> > qBuilder.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "a")), Occur.SHOULD);
>> >
>> > qBuilder.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "d")), Occur.SHOULD);
>> >
>> > BooleanQuery.Builder nestQuery = new BooleanQuery.Builder();
>> >
>> > nestQuery.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "b")), Occur.FILTER);
>> >
>> > nestQuery.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "a")), Occur.SHOULD);
>> >
>> > nestQuery.add(new TermQuery(new Term("field", "d")), Occur.SHOULD);
>> >
>> > qBuilder.add(nestQuery.build(),Occur.SHOULD);
>> >
>> > qBuilder.setMinimumNumberShouldMatch(1);
>> >
>> > BooleanQuery q = qBuilder.build();
>> >
>> > q = qBuilder.build();
>> >
>> > assertSameScoresWithoutFilters(searcher, q);
>> >
>> >
>> > In this test, the top boolean query(qBuilder) contains 4 clauses(3
>> simple term-query ,1 nested boolean query that contains the same 3
>> term-query).
>> >
>> > The underlying execution is that all the 6 term query were executed(see
>> TermQuery.Termweight#getTermsEnum()).
>> >
>> > Apparently and theoretically, the executions can be merged to increase
>> the time,right?.
>> >
>> >
>> > So,is it possible or necessary that Lucene merge the execution to
>> optimize the query performance, even though I know the optimization may be
>> difficult.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrien
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
