[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9204?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17367338#comment-17367338
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-9204:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}I hope it's ok to post this here
{quote}
Of course it is – thank you! And I'll have a look at the {{luceneutil}} PR
soon.
{quote}Another main takeaway from my perspective was to confirm the exponential
performance implications of {{pullUpDisjunctions()}}, over increasing numbers
of inner disjunctions
{quote}
This is a spooky result! I did not know our {{IntervalQuery}} for the
disjunctive case had exponential cost in the number of clauses.
> 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
