[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9335?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17326323#comment-17326323
]
Zach Chen commented on LUCENE-9335:
-----------------------------------
Hi [~jpountz], I took a stab at implementing BMM and published a new PR here
for further discussion [https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/101] . I'm pretty
happy about being able to implement a new scorer, even though its performance
is a bit poor (although seems to be on par with the experiment result published
in [http://engineering.nyu.edu/~suel/papers/bmm.pdf] for BMM and BMW comparison
for 2-clause OR query). Shall we consider adding benchmark query set with 5+
clauses to see the performance comparison, as that seems to be when BMM may
outperform BMW as the paper suggested?
> Add a bulk scorer for disjunctions that does dynamic pruning
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9335
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9335
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Time Spent: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Lucene often gets benchmarked against other engines, e.g. against Tantivy and
> PISA at [https://tantivy-search.github.io/bench/] or against research
> prototypes in Table 1 of
> [https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~jimmylin/publications/Grand_etal_ECIR2020_preprint.pdf].
> Given that top-level disjunctions of term queries are commonly used for
> benchmarking, it would be nice to optimize this case a bit more, I suspect
> that we could make fewer per-document decisions by implementing a BulkScorer
> instead of a Scorer.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
