ioeric added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/DexIndex.cpp:86
+ const auto TrigramTokens = generateIdentifierTrigrams(Req.Query);
+ TopLevelChildren.push_back(createAnd(createTrigramIterators(TrigramTokens)));
+
----------------
`createTrigramIterators` and `createScopeIterators` use `InvertedIndex`, so
they should be called in the critical section.
Maybe
```
/// ....
/// Requires: Called from a critical section of `InvertedIndex`.
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Iterator>> createTrigramIterators(
const llvm::DenseMap<Token, PostingList> &InvertedIndex, TrigramTokens);
```
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/DexIndex.cpp:102
+ // final score might not be retrieved otherwise.
+ const unsigned ItemsToRetrieve = 100 * Req.MaxCandidateCount;
+ SymbolDocIDs = consume(*QueryIterator, ItemsToRetrieve);
----------------
Maybe add a `FIXME` about finding the best pre-scoring retrieval threshold. I'm
not sure if `100*MaxCandidateCount` would work well in practice. For example,
if the `MaxCandidateCount` is small e.g. `5`, then the retrieval threshold
would only be 50, which still seems to be too small.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/DexIndex.cpp:110
+ const auto Score = Filter.match(Sym->Name);
+ assert(Score.hasValue() && "Matched symbol has all Fuzzy Matching "
+ "trigrams, it should match the query");
----------------
I don't think this assertion is well justified. I think we should just skip if
the fuzzy match fails.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/DexIndex.cpp:118
+ // in the order of descending score.
+ std::sort(begin(Scores), end(Scores),
+ [](const std::pair<float, const Symbol *> &LHS,
----------------
I think we should use a priority queue so that we don't need to store/sort all
retrieved symbols.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/unittests/clangd/DexIndexTests.cpp:367
+// FIXME(kbobyrev): Use 3+ symbols long names so that trigram index is used.
+TEST(MergeDexIndex, Lookup) {
+ DexIndex I, J;
----------------
This seems to be testing `mergeIndex(...)` which is not relevant in this patch?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/unittests/clangd/DexIndexTests.cpp:388
+
+// FIXME(kbobyrev): Add more tests on DexIndex? Right now, it's mostly a
wrapper
+// around DexIndex, adopting tests from IndexTests.cpp sounds reasonable.
----------------
Now that we are handling both short and long queries. I think we can address
this FIXME in this patch?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/unittests/clangd/DexIndexTests.cpp:540
+
+TEST(DexMergeIndexTest, Lookup) {
+ DexIndex I, J;
----------------
Again, `mergeIndex(...)` is not interesting here.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50337
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
