[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9204?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17360503#comment-17360503
]
Michael Gibney commented on LUCENE-9204:
----------------------------------------
Apologies for the delayed response. This all makes sense; and again, I'm not
suggesting "leniency", or to revisit decisions wrt correctness. But there's
still a tradeoff, even if there's an obvious correct choice; and in fact the
tradeoff (or something like it) is still explicitly offered to users via the
boolean {{rewrite}} parameter to static
[Intervals.or(...)|https://lucene.apache.org/core/8_8_1/queries/org/apache/lucene/queries/intervals/Intervals.html#or-boolean-org.apache.lucene.queries.intervals.IntervalsSource...-]
factory methods, so the performance questions are not moot.
{quote}It is slower indeed ...{quote}
I guess that's the key to what I'm wondering. Is it slower? I assume it is, but
I don't really know ... or slower by how much? I don't know where/how it would
be appropriate to do benchmarking of this stuff; but it would be really nice to
be able to quantify the performance of these kinds of disjunction queries, and
right now (afaict -- please correct me if I'm wrong) positional queries with
disjunctions aren't covered in any benchmarks -- whether MultiPhraseQuery,
intervals, or spans. If there's interest, I'd be happy (time permitting) to
contribute towards adding such coverage.
On an unrelated note, I think this issue may have a duplicate that can also be
closed: LUCENE-3321
> Move span queries to the queries module
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9204
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9204
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alan Woodward
> Assignee: Alan Woodward
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: main (9.0)
>
> Time Spent: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> We have a slightly odd situation currently, with two parallel query
> structures for building complex positional queries: the long-standing span
> queries, in core; and interval queries, in the queries module. Given that
> interval queries solve at least some of the problems we've had with Spans, I
> think we should be pushing users more towards these implementations. It's
> counter-intuitive to do that when Spans are in core though. I've opened this
> issue to discuss moving the spans package as a whole to the queries module.
--
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
