[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10010?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17367020#comment-17367020
]
Dawid Weiss commented on LUCENE-10010:
--------------------------------------
I think it makes sense. Russ's article is a wonderful writeup on not just
regexp-automata but on automata in general (there are three parts if I recall
right). NFA traversal is not necessarily slow - tracking multiple paths can
slow it down a bit but typically it's still fast.
> Should we have a NFA Query?
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10010
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10010
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: core/search
> Affects Versions: main (9.0)
> Reporter: Haoyu Zhai
> Priority: Major
>
> Today when a {{RegexpQuery}} is created, it will be translated to NFA,
> determinized to DFA and eventually become an {{AutomatonQuery}}, which is
> very fast. However, not every NFA could be determinized to DFA easily, the
> example given in LUCENE-9981 showed how easy could a short regexp break the
> determinize process.
> Maybe, instead of marking those kind of queries as adversarial cases, we
> could make a new kind of NFA query, which execute directly on NFA and thus no
> need to worry about determinize process or determinized DFA size. It should
> be slower, but also makes those adversarial cases doable.
> [This article|https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html] has provided a
> simple but efficient way of searching over NFA, essentially it is a partial
> determinize process that only determinize the necessary part of DFA. Maybe we
> could give it a try?
--
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
