[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17566149#comment-17566149
]
Zach Chen commented on LUCENE-10480:
------------------------------------
{quote}I wouldn't say blocker, but maybe we could give us time indeed by only
using this new scorer on top-level disjunctions for now so that we have more
time to figure out whether we should stick to BMW or switch to BMM for inner
disjunctions.
{quote}
Sounds good. I tried a few quick approaches to limit BMM scorer to top-level
disjunctions in *BooleanWeight* or {*}Boolean2ScorerSupplier{*}, but they
didn't work due to weight's / query's recursive logic. So I ended up wrapping
the scorer inside a bulk scorer ([https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1018,]
pending tests update) like your other PR. Please let me know if this approach
looks good to you, or if there's a better approach.
> Specialize 2-clauses disjunctions
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10480
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10480
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Time Spent: 7.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> WANDScorer is nice, but it also has lots of overhead to maintain its
> invariants: one linked list for the current candidates, one priority queue of
> scorers that are behind, another one for scorers that are ahead. All this
> could be simplified in the 2-clauses case, which feels worth specializing for
> as it's very common that end users enter queries that only have two terms?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
