[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17440448#comment-17440448
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-10061:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for exploring this area [~zacharymorn]! I wonder if LUCENE-9335 could be
helpful to reduce the overhead of pruning, since Maxscore tends to be have
lower overhead than WAND.
I see that you tested with 4 and 2 as boost values. I wonder if it makes a
difference if you try out e.g. 20 and 1 instead. I just looked again at table
3.1 on https://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sbrp622/papers/foundations_bm25_review.pdf
and the optimal weights that they found for title/body were 38.4/1 on one
dataset and 13.5/1 on another dataset.
> CombinedFieldsQuery needs dynamic pruning support
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10061
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10061
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: CombinedFieldQueryTasks.wikimedium.10M.nostopwords.tasks
>
> Time Spent: 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> CombinedFieldQuery's Scorer doesn't implement advanceShallow/getMaxScore,
> forcing Lucene to collect all matches in order to figure the top-k hits.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
